IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis (The Transport

Rob Williams <rwilliams@certicom.com> Mon, 10 March 2008 17:34 UTC

Return-Path: <tls-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-tls-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-tls-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F28EF3A690D; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:34:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -100.487
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-100.487 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.051, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RDNS_NONE=0.1, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id RKyQqP5qjs2P; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:34:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1503A3A6896; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:34:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C0093A688E for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:34:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id n5Pce39q3Tki for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:34:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.ca.certicom.com (mail.ca.certicom.com [38.113.160.197]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9582A3A6883 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 10:34:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from spamfilter.certicom.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.ca.certicom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D6E410027FEC for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:32:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail.ca.certicom.com ([127.0.0.1]) by spamfilter.certicom.com (storm.certicom.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id a0nSSFH9qPPF for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:31:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from domino1.certicom.com (domino1.certicom.com [10.0.1.24]) by mail.ca.certicom.com (Postfix) with ESMTP for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:31:56 -0400 (EDT)
To: tls@ietf.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 6.5.5 November 30, 2005
Message-ID: <OF0C31C615.1AFB9004-ON85257408.005F41D9-85257408.0060453E@certicom.com>
From: Rob Williams <rwilliams@certicom.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 13:30:07 -0400
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on Certicom1/Certicom(Release 7.0.2FP2 HF177|August 10, 2007) at 03/10/2008 01:30:32 PM, Serialize complete at 03/10/2008 01:30:32 PM
Subject: Re: [TLS] Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis (The Transport
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
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/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0320292294=="
Sender: tls-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tls-bounces@ietf.org

At Thu, 06 Mar 2008 08:32:04 -0800 
Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > There seem to be a lot of strong feelings against SHA-224.
> > I looked at the FIPS amendment which defines it, and it
> > doesn't appear to be such a horrible thing.  Can someone
> > explain how NIST got it so wrong?
>
> It's not *bad*. It's just unnecessary.

Agreed. 

Just as SHA-224 is to SHA-256, 
        SHA-384 is to SHA-512: truncated with different IV.

I am looking forward to seeing SHA-384 removed from TLS 1.2.

Thanks!
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email