Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3
Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Tue, 13 January 2015 21:34 UTC
Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3CFD1B29A5 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 13:34:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id olTectYV-xYl for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 13:34:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C20E1AD481 for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 13:34:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id D91A8BE97; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 21:34:20 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aH_dgakQfHNA; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 21:34:19 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [10.87.48.73] (unknown [86.41.54.55]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9D990BE79; Tue, 13 Jan 2015 21:34:19 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <54B58F5B.2010704@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 21:34:19 +0000
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Paul Lambert <paul@marvell.com>, Aaron Zauner <azet@azet.org>, TLS Mailing List <tls@ietf.org>
References: <54B5501A.4070402@azet.org> <D0DA96DB.58455%paul@marvell.com>
In-Reply-To: <D0DA96DB.58455%paul@marvell.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/j6u3FPCo3NpSTP_-2Eip1D9Qud0>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3
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: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 21:34:24 -0000
<no-hats> On 13/01/15 18:25, Paul Lambert wrote: > This should not stop inclusion of OCB as an optional mode in TLS, I don't get why additional options are at all attractive. In fact, I think they're ugly. TLS has about 327 ciphersuites. That's just stupid. (I'm not saying any person is stupid there btw, but we have gotten ourselves into a stupid place.) If we have a really better thing, they why not make it MTI? If we do not have something sufficiently better then I'd argue to exclude as much as possible, and certainly against adding anything that is just nice to have. I'd even like to make almost all current ciphersuites a MUST NOT (or start a new registry) for TLS1.3 and to not add any new ciphersuites at all, and just stick with two MTI ciphersuites that are as genetically different as possible and cover as many implementations (h/w AES or not) as possible. So my suggestion is to reduce the ciphersuite field to be 2 bits wide in TLS 1.3, with 00 being default, 01 backup, 02 being "proprietary" and 03 reserved. If either 00 or 01 needs to be changed then I'd say rev the TLS version. (I don't care if we did s/default/has-AES-hw/ and s/backup/just-sw-crypto/ that'd also be fine.) And yes, I realise that's not likely to get traction, but turning 327 into 427 is even dumber when reality shows that only a few of 'em are used or needed. <no-hats> With a random hat: the OCB RFC is an IRTF informational document and had CFRG consensus for publication. Using that in a standards track spec would require TLS WG consensus, and then IETF consensus. So there's no magic, just the usual IPR processing that each participant has to do for themselves. I'd be pretty confident in a bet that the odd encumbrance of OCB will be a hard barrier to overcome, but who knows. Cheers, S.
- [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Aaron Zauner
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Martin Thomson
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Salz, Rich
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Aaron Zauner
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Aaron Zauner
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Russ Housley
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Aaron Zauner
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Watson Ladd
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Matt Caswell
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Matt Caswell
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Salz, Rich
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Aaron Zauner
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Matt Caswell
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Aaron Zauner
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Paul Lambert
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Stephen Farrell
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Blumenthal, Uri - 0558 - MITLL
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Brian Smith
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Jacob Appelbaum
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Joachim Strömbergson
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Aaron Zauner
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Aaron Zauner
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Salz, Rich
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Aaron Zauner
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Aaron Zauner
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Aaron Zauner
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Eric Rescorla
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Aaron Zauner
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Aaron Zauner
- [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Phillip Rogaway
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Manuel Pégourié-Gonnard
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Aaron Zauner
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Peter Gutmann
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Blumenthal, Uri - 0558 - MITLL
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Alex Elsayed
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Aaron Zauner
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Aaron Zauner
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Aaron Zauner
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Eric Rescorla
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Jack Lloyd
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Aaron Zauner
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Aaron Zauner
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Martin Thomson
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Aaron Zauner
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Martin Thomson
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Aaron Zauner
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Aaron Zauner
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Salz, Rich
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Watson Ladd
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Salz, Rich
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Nico Williams
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Henrik Grubbström
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Nico Williams
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Nico Williams
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Aaron Zauner
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Salz, Rich
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Nico Williams
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Dmitry Belyavsky
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Aaron Zauner
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Jack Lloyd
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Aaron Zauner
- [TLS] GOST in TLS (Re: Inclusion of OCB mode in T… Martin Rex
- Re: [TLS] GOST in TLS (Re: Inclusion of OCB mode … Dmitry Belyavsky
- Re: [TLS] GOST in TLS (Re: Inclusion of OCB mode … Martin Rex
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Peter Gutmann
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Aaron Zauner
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Aaron Zauner
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Aaron Zauner
- [TLS] PSK [was: Re: Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS … Daniel Kahn Gillmor
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Peter Gutmann
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Jack Lloyd
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Aaron Zauner
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Aaron Zauner
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Peter Gutmann
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Jack Lloyd
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Roland Zink
- Re: [TLS] Inclusion of OCB mode in TLS 1.3 Aaron Zauner