Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-rfc4492bis

[Sean Turner <[e-mail]>]

>> - Section 1
>> "This is illustrated in the following table, based on [Lenstra_Verheul],
>> which gives approximate comparable key sizes for symmetric- and
>> asymmetric-key cryptosystems based on the best-known algorithms for
>> attacking them."
>> 
>> The key sizes for DH/DSA/RSA does not seem to be based on the
>> Lenstra-Verheuls equations which gives much higher key sizes for
>> DH/DSA/RSA.
>> 
>> The DH/DSA/RSA key sizes seem to be based on NIST recommendations. I
>> suggest either:
>> 
>> A) Fully based the table on NIST recommendation, which means keeping
>> DH/DSA/RSA as is but simplifying ECC to 2 * Symmetric.
>> B) Update the DH/DSA/RSA key sizes based on state-of-the-art. But then I
>> would say that this is not [Lenstra_Verheul], but rather [RFC3766],
>> [Lenstra 2004], [ECRYPT 2012]. I think these three all use the same
>> equation.
>> C) Just remove DH/DSA/RSA as the draft is about ECC.
> 
> I’m inclined to get rid of this table and all the text from “This is illustrated…” entirely. ECC is by now in wide use. We don’t need to “sell” it any more. so unless someone would like to make a PR with better text, I will just get rid of it.

You could be more draconian and start the draft with the paragraph:

  This document describes additions to TLS to support ECC ….

Because you’re right we don’t really need to do much selling here.

spt