Re: [TLS] call for consensus: changes to IANA registry rules for cipher suites

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> (with no hats, except the one irritated with loadsa ciphersuites:-)
>
> On 30/03/16 21:26, Yoav Nir wrote:
> > That brings up another question. How do things move from “approved”
> > to “not-approved”? Does it require a diediedie document? What
> > happens when we decide that 3DES is just too limited and there’s not
> > good reason to use it, but there’s really no security issue with
> > using it?
>
> How about starting from the smallest possible set with "Y" in
> the IETF recommended column? And then focus on keeping that set
> as small as possible and actively not letting it grow.
>
> Let's *pretty please* take this opportunity to prune the stupid
> list of nearly 350 all ostensibly but so not equal ciphersuites
> down to the smallest list that can reasonably be recommended.
> Measurements seem to have indicated that just a handful is all
> that really needs to be very widely supported.
>

We already have a proposal for this. Please see:
http://tlswg.github.io/tls13-spec/#iana-considerations

-Ekr




That will require folks here to not mess about and to resist the
> set of people who want ciphersuite foo because it's important to
> just them and a few others.
>
> Remember: Sean's proposed text, is to limit the "Y" to stuff that
> we do expect to, and want to, see widely or very widely implemented
> and deployed.
>
> If this WG fail to take this opportunity to fix the 350 ciphersuite
> stupidity then that'll be a pretty clear fail in which we'll all
> (me included) have sadly partaken. Let's fix that eh?
>
> S.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>
>