Re: [TLS] draft-mcgrew-tls-aes-ccm-ecc-00 (again)

Adam Langley <agl@google.com> Thu, 06 January 2011 14:42 UTC

Return-Path: <agl@google.com>
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 9250D3A6F1F for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 06:42:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.662
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.662 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315, 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 fJZuZW0IcMDw for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 06:42:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-out.google.com (smtp-out.google.com [216.239.44.51]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E6733A6F19 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 06:42:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hpaq13.eem.corp.google.com (hpaq13.eem.corp.google.com [172.25.149.13]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id p06EiMDO032491 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 06:44:27 -0800
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; t=1294325068; bh=9eICSikKoaj2BqL9apH/478K5Dk=; h=MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID:Subject:From: To:Cc:Content-Type; b=TesxSMmlZR2tdXwQtahl82i49xeqRoXhgkZcvtpo9qGelgZTAMhKq4rvkf/2N4z9X fXME1Hk4kGg2M0MN6VH7w==
Received: from iyj17 (iyj17.prod.google.com [10.241.51.81]) by hpaq13.eem.corp.google.com with ESMTP id p06EiHC2018773 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 06:44:21 -0800
Received: by iyj17 with SMTP id 17so15387885iyj.28 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 06:44:21 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=9EJBcQvTP0Y+9zj+MpEKsWbXCQEHNbKPXMmA8IwzZPY=; b=NHYWFSat24fX6IMEiJWzvJYUVdeT/B7T53BKVam2009hEG+68xNdZ8j6N07CqpJaX/ 3IF895A12wzg+jD1wFPA==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=QpsScJDf7Wpwjv+yp/SziNhjbtQf3G3HxPrvnnZ3+LXNbmrgVF29ZsKCf3+MAZprlA Lyz3+16zTpUZwJdRy84Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.231.176.75 with SMTP id bd11mr8367841ibb.49.1294325060946; Thu, 06 Jan 2011 06:44:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.231.16.193 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Jan 2011 06:44:20 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <-9154083263273522078@unknownmsgid>
References: <-9154083263273522078@unknownmsgid>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2011 09:44:20 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTimkH1BW24vSqhjKQtEKHLcsTgY59VOjUx7Atz7H@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
To: d.sturek@att.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-System-Of-Record: true
Cc: tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] draft-mcgrew-tls-aes-ccm-ecc-00 (again)
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-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 06 Jan 2011 14:42:22 -0000

On Thu, Jan 6, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Don Sturek <d.sturek@att.net> wrote:
> I think CCM is a common cipher suite for IEEE802 and this draft matches what
> is specified in IEEE (and implemented in hardware in millions of devices).

Although I think that GCM already covers this case, I don't feel that
the WG should dictate what ciphersuites people can use with TLS. Since
CCM mode is clearly reasonable and the request is made in good faith I
support the speedy passage of such drafts.


AGL