RE: [TLS] Review of draft-salowey-tls-rsa-aes-gcm-00-rev
"Joseph Salowey \(jsalowey\)" <jsalowey@cisco.com> Mon, 12 March 2007 05:03 UTC
Return-path: <tls-bounces@lists.ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQchR-0003ru-BT; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 01:03:57 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQchQ-0003rp-D0 for tls@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 01:03:56 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HQchP-0008Hp-1I for tls@ietf.org; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 01:03:56 -0400
Received: from sj-dkim-3.cisco.com ([171.71.179.195]) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 11 Mar 2007 22:03:54 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,271,1170662400"; d="scan'208"; a="469893556:sNHT46294220"
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (sj-core-2.cisco.com [171.71.177.254]) by sj-dkim-3.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l2C53ssM026256; Sun, 11 Mar 2007 22:03:54 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l2C53s1T000179; Mon, 12 Mar 2007 05:03:54 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.38]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 11 Mar 2007 22:03:54 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [TLS] Review of draft-salowey-tls-rsa-aes-gcm-00-rev
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 22:03:51 -0700
Message-ID: <AC1CFD94F59A264488DC2BEC3E890DE5036404F1@xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <20070310203552.E46F51CC77@delta.rtfm.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [TLS] Review of draft-salowey-tls-rsa-aes-gcm-00-rev
Thread-Index: AcdjVA7cf4eQni1MQ0yxWUYgVZ1PsQBDafPQ
From: "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <jsalowey@cisco.com>
To: EKR <ekr@networkresonance.com>, tls@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Mar 2007 05:03:54.0224 (UTC) FILETIME=[D50C4700:01C76463]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1303; t=1173675834; x=1174539834; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim3002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jsalowey@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Joseph=20Salowey=20\(jsalowey\)=22=20<jsalowey@cisco.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[TLS]=20Review=20of=20draft-salowey-tls-rsa-aes-gcm-0 0-rev |Sender:=20; bh=HspFMRixk/FJiofw52jNYPfoTUr9uv+gLLLtHYl4XZ0=; b=Cr3Xeg4QFUQ864jANcJdK1HdyUrE7BuKn/D+PlIFn2xd2Eg4D+xN1G1kLdKm7Y3GiqcsUfSU FKGceLOtLWI9mtfqRn9mNzMDZw+TBcSYQ1O7VQTNr30/cTOK9X5/Yr7e;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-3; header.From=jsalowey@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim3002 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 69a74e02bbee44ab4f8eafdbcedd94a1
Cc:
X-BeenThere: tls@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.lists.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/tls>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@lists.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: tls-bounces@lists.ietf.org
> -----Original Message----- > From: EKR [mailto:ekr@networkresonance.com] > Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 12:36 PM > To: tls@ietf.org > Subject: [TLS] Review of draft-salowey-tls-rsa-aes-gcm-00-rev > > $Id: draft-salowey-tls-rsa-aes-gcm-00-rev.txt,v 1.2 > 2007/03/10 20:47:45 ekr Exp $ > > This draft is needed and looks well written. I have two main > comments: > > 1. Why limit the application to RSA? Given that the suite b document > gives us GCM for ECC don't we want to provide it here for both > RSA and DH? [Joe] Do you mean adding static DH, anonymous DH or both to this draft? I don't see any problem adding these. > 2. We will probably want to harmonize the counter format with > what was discussed in San Diego (but which I was too lame to > get a new counter version out). Namely, 4 bytes of salt > and 8 bytes of explicit nonce. > [Joe] Definitely, I think that is what we tried to put in the draft, I may have had some difficulties in getting this expressed. I agree the suite b draft and this draft should be in sync as much as possible. > > -Ekr > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@lists.ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls > _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls