IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Why are the brainpool curves not allowed in TLS 1.3?

"Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL" <uri@ll.mit.edu> Wed, 18 July 2018 17:40 UTC

Return-Path: <prvs=07374b424d=uri@ll.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96BDD1311EF for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 10:40:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.197
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=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 BoxztljP0VhG for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 10:40:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from llmx3.ll.mit.edu (LLMX3.LL.MIT.EDU [129.55.12.49]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 90793130F9C for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 10:40:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from LLE2K16-MBX01.mitll.ad.local (LLE2K16-MBX01.mitll.ad.local) by llmx3.ll.mit.edu (unknown) with ESMTP id w6IHeTMM029392; Wed, 18 Jul 2018 13:40:30 -0400
From: "Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL" <uri@ll.mit.edu>
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "Bruckert, Leonie" <Leonie.Bruckert@secunet.com>, "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [TLS] Why are the brainpool curves not allowed in TLS 1.3?
Thread-Index: AdQdyutxd5brAeCrTvCBnUE+fi65pAALHowA///OLCuAAEQ9AIABKxEAgAAnlQCAAF9LAP//x8YAgAACGoA=
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 17:40:28 +0000
Message-ID: <7098419E-6F96-4398-A736-38C2F99E11FF@ll.mit.edu>
References: <DE8E4C1F24911E469CC24DD4819274AA2770426C@mail-essen-01.secunet.de> <CABcZeBNjsU+FLdF7nnfhaqLWDNU5HHcX-W_261wmAfWqmMqm+w@mail.gmail.com> <1531903926363.56642@cs.auckland.ac.nz> <2386527.GkuWJfRkxc@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com> <DE8E4C1F24911E469CC24DD4819274AA27734B81@mail-essen-01.secunet.de> <1980F0B3-65DB-48F7-B898-3389731C8125@akamai.com>
In-Reply-To: <1980F0B3-65DB-48F7-B898-3389731C8125@akamai.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach: yes
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.d.1.180523
x-originating-ip: [172.25.1.90]
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha256"; boundary="B_3614766069_1364456924"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-07-18_04:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=896 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1806210000 definitions=main-1807180193
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/T_c778wT2zD9S98bRhd8SU0q5gU>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Why are the brainpool curves not allowed in TLS 1.3?
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.27
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 17:40:45 -0000

> This would result in an IANA registry with duplicated entries for brainpool curves: the old, now prohibited code points and the new assigned ones. Is this correct?

 

No.  The request could ask for the existing reserved codepoints to be re-used.

 

No offense meant, but this does not make sense. Code points were assigned, probably some apps were/are using them. Now those code points are to be invalidated, and new ones assigned instead?!

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email