IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Is Ed25519/Ed448 ok for use in DTLS1.2?

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Tue, 19 November 2019 00:41 UTC

Return-Path: <rsalz@akamai.com>
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 7261B120143 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 16:41:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.com
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 5i6xjtkRlQv4 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 16:41:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9001:583::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80FCE120125 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 16:41:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0050095.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0050095.ppops.net-00190b01. (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id xAJ0bGjT013490; Tue, 19 Nov 2019 00:41:20 GMT
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=from : to : subject : date : message-id : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-id : content-transfer-encoding : mime-version; s=jan2016.eng; bh=i+dZHCiuFg0JE9Sq97LLesCG20ZvdfVhIf2knmiPBhs=; b=fMLVu1HryRSimBfyfI4dZi6tdnjQPA2yp3a5xjQIQiVV2Kt9iT4C/4SKNf6UUpxGxm8B lt+aVYKDE2tdtIHIf4nBdjVPHXYveyz8Tl+5jvPAnJ9EDmBtMfTVMnO935rX0TynSlWg b31chigo3wKhaNBw0ipCuyU6jYDBkjpcMZ2/w0MFaEuQ0ZgIUkE2+D/yQSZairoa82T3 d0IoBbiND0aelZUxI09gh0Mxpc8gUzze+GHIHQaQFDPlPkv91ZYXVa5FZWbSRgmT+03x b8FXl7qQ5PnqRkV7/0RsbD8Jm5KxyFG86oSoaDj23cJXyXBBGE4l5SxXfKRGF35JErWa 6A==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint5 (prod-mail-ppoint5.akamai.com [184.51.33.60] (may be forged)) by m0050095.ppops.net-00190b01. with ESMTP id 2wafwvb7ev-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 19 Nov 2019 00:41:19 +0000
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint5.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint5.akamai.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id xAJ0WFqs003936; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 16:41:18 -0800
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.33]) by prod-mail-ppoint5.akamai.com with ESMTP id 2wafybkqka-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 18 Nov 2019 16:41:18 -0800
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB3.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.103) by usma1ex-dag1mb4.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.123.104) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 19:41:17 -0500
Received: from USMA1EX-DAG1MB3.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.103]) by usma1ex-dag1mb3.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.123.103]) with mapi id 15.00.1473.005; Mon, 18 Nov 2019 19:41:17 -0500
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: Matt Caswell <matt@openssl.org>, "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [TLS] Is Ed25519/Ed448 ok for use in DTLS1.2?
Thread-Index: AQHVnjBEKs2RQ4j7hkK2gB9KCnqbQ6eRhYCAgABX6AD//8pQgA==
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 00:41:16 +0000
Message-ID: <2D5349E3-D9FE-44B6-8A40-1F1AE1863A46@akamai.com>
References: <fbd7b2cc-5cfc-3b30-270f-2ae312daa0d6@openssl.org> <F810173C-C693-4A4E-8450-2FE4A9490CAE@akamai.com> <4431e115-64ff-b660-87bb-b8bf3aa4ea15@openssl.org>
In-Reply-To: <4431e115-64ff-b660-87bb-b8bf3aa4ea15@openssl.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/10.1f.0.191110
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.19.216.123]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <4F13A019D457834E9CBD820C32156579@akamai.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2019-11-18_08:, , 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=857 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1911140001 definitions=main-1911190001
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.95,18.0.572 definitions=2019-11-18_08:2019-11-15,2019-11-18 signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 priorityscore=1501 phishscore=0 clxscore=1015 mlxlogscore=826 impostorscore=0 suspectscore=0 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 adultscore=0 mlxscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-1910280000 definitions=main-1911190001
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/WmY9wxXFCczUHe8yoEn6-Yb9FYg>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Is Ed25519/Ed448 ok for use in DTLS1.2?
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 19 Nov 2019 00:41:24 -0000

As 8422 says "DTLS-OK" and since Yoav is both an author of the RFC and one of the registry experts, I think he needs to reply here.

>    My guess is either:  
>    1) The registry is in error and they should not have Y against them
> or
 >   2) The intent behind RFC 8442 was that it should apply to DTLS but it
    was missed in error.
    
#1 is the simple fix, but it seems wrong.  #2 could *probably* be fixed with an errata, but hard to do in a way that doesn't make the changes invasive.

FWIW, as another one of the registry experts, I prefer #2.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email