IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Should we require compressed points

Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard <mpg@polarssl.org> Tue, 28 October 2014 09:35 UTC

Return-Path: <mpg@polarssl.org>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DBAC1A1A83 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 02:35:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.397
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.397 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, HOST_EQ_NL=1.545, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EPviktiJ3KLQ for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 02:35:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vps2.offspark.com (vps2.brainspark.nl [141.138.204.106]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6DBEB1A1AC5 for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 02:35:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=polarssl.org; s=exim; h=Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:References:CC:To:MIME-Version:From:Date:Message-ID; bh=kSIqeui+cNf13matAUDDirSfxHK2d0LKflRdjy+W2hY=; b=NXHd4NbMjof4QouxvmFpP1ZYzN0Z1O94qhWu96L8yJbFbFcv3qNiGDaJk+oy/L7nBtonorDmysGHqCSg7W/9fnlkNl7IFk2ptGlP6BBADjQRIFhXPxtbMPNG5La0jEvG4mzzd/pYGRFI1tUdMfc6I+5FE2T8NNJHXjdXsPhgWoY=;
Received: from mna75-11-88-161-199-191.fbx.proxad.net ([88.161.199.191] helo=[192.168.0.12]) by vps2.offspark.com with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <mpg@polarssl.org>) id 1Xj3BR-00080Q-Oh; Tue, 28 Oct 2014 10:35:22 +0100
Message-ID: <544F635D.2000309@polarssl.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 10:35:25 +0100
From: Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard <mpg@polarssl.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>, Peter Gutmann <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
References: <9A043F3CF02CD34C8E74AC1594475C739B9D6102@uxcn10-5.UoA.auckland.ac.nz> <CABcZeBOWR4BVy0e3TY3FVB8wqOwrUgD6OfHLTJS_iXUZv30CsA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBOWR4BVy0e3TY3FVB8wqOwrUgD6OfHLTJS_iXUZv30CsA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 88.161.199.191
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: mpg@polarssl.org
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Mon, 26 Dec 2011 16:24:06 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on vps2.offspark.com)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/T2qH4feZ8V9gGiwaRMVpt4lSNE8
Cc: "<tls@ietf.org>" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Should we require compressed points
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 09:35:35 -0000

On 27/10/2014 23:10, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> As I said above, I'm principally trying to get rid of negotiation so we have
> one point format for each curve. I could certainly live with requiring 
> uncompressed only for the X9.62 curves and then defining a new, cleaner
> format for the new CFRG curves.
> 
If the goal is to get rid of negotiation, would it be reasonable to say that
implementations MUST support both formats?

Manuel.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email