[TLS] adopting ChaCha20 as a WG item was: I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-prohibiting-rc4-01.txt

Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <nmav@redhat.com> Thu, 02 October 2014 12:33 UTC

Return-Path: <nmav@redhat.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83A201A6FC0 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 05:33:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.688
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.688 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6U3H5ASmohuI for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 05:33:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E75411A6FA8 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 05:33:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com []) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s92CXuBo030479 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 08:33:56 -0400
Received: from [] (dhcp-2-127.brq.redhat.com []) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s92CXsbg029254 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 2 Oct 2014 08:33:55 -0400
Message-ID: <1412253233.27112.31.camel@dhcp-2-127.brq.redhat.com>
From: Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <nmav@redhat.com>
To: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2014 14:33:53 +0200
In-Reply-To: <A3F7FDF7-F7C3-4704-8FDD-C1198C6EE1A9@akr.io>
References: <20141002005804.2760C1AE9D@ld9781.wdf.sap.corp> <BA2DFF33-7B0C-4E87-9C0E-215933AED88F@akr.io> <CADMpkc+j5kL1G=NA9phQy=nLAEUA1u8jfnNT=2wDp_S=kOTjNQ@mail.gmail.com> <A3F7FDF7-F7C3-4704-8FDD-C1198C6EE1A9@akr.io>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/itE3XWowPQ-gq_-2XKpRSQ-yUOU
Subject: [TLS] adopting ChaCha20 as a WG item was: I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-prohibiting-rc4-01.txt
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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/options/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, 02 Oct 2014 12:33:58 -0000

On Thu, 2014-10-02 at 12:40 +0100, Alyssa Rowan wrote:

> Let's go through possible justifications for why I think that, and
> alternatives:
> [...]
> • High performance? AES-GCM (in the presence of hardware support) or
> ChaCha20-Poly1305. Both faster than RC4 unless you're packing an 8-bit,
> and quite reasonable even if you are.

And that reminds me that Chacha20 does not exist yet. Would it be
reasonable for the WG to adopt the current draft [0] given that Yoav's
draft has been adopted by CFRG?


[0]. http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mavrogiannopoulos-chacha-tls-02
[1]. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-cfrg-chacha20-poly1305-01