Re: [TLS] AES-OCB in TLS [New Version Notification for draft-zauner-tls-aes-ocb-03.txt]

Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> Mon, 01 June 2015 17:22 UTC

Return-Path: <noloader@gmail.com>
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 36E331B2F53 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 10:22:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 3uNKiYygJ2NX for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 10:22:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x22d.google.com (mail-ig0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D7DA31B2A6E for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 10:22:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by igbhj9 with SMTP id hj9so66878380igb.1 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 10:22:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=hTKreCaRtNzWhSWVfTXnJ3oIC8+BYQSsiX7yTPy2jOA=; b=JsSkcmSuyg/9fR6T+96pFjvG0duAldv1Ce3QeqYnMWDMLG4naRNqaQ0VT9g9IOjmOa lyk5YbcqRVGR+2M/MW6GtwpFbVNU21uvdHmun7r+T9Xqr5ZFlP5IRjW7Ebp1ZpCGy3Pd 6RQbadnwRrjq2ER9+6HgCwLrmlKt+EnRmqw8poTWJu3A54ic9KAn5fUnDTf6pJHIp9rM lKR76xOo1aIJkLPy0VK/RBe9QtywOPydYGd/oSZouT60jgJFIMq6jZYEU+hSSO8XVUqB 75bE5dlL/B2dy8svDD0UsxB4N2zvoH2yk7ZvGQd87Cxo/E0uZwhpcaR2gIvCopE3uJZb vhbQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.30.105 with SMTP id r9mr15063331igh.11.1433179323365; Mon, 01 Jun 2015 10:22:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.36.77.15 with HTTP; Mon, 1 Jun 2015 10:22:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <556C9157.4030409@gmail.com>
References: <556C4ACD.9040002@azet.org> <CABcZeBNsYmto4F-J0mFoxcq-qfL=NJrvDu67fyY9bpBmRp16mQ@mail.gmail.com> <556C51FC.807@azet.org> <5878037.eTrqDl0Ll5@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com> <556C5881.4080902@azet.org> <CAH8yC8nCCNF9B72yNgM-hOkCYJrc2ZU0PmpeBrnbknKO92OZtA@mail.gmail.com> <556C8320.2010705@azet.org> <CAH8yC8k9Ytf+-=VM0AF36nr3PF_fjTvEpgNRNqAF7xu4zymzRg@mail.gmail.com> <556C9157.4030409@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 13:22:03 -0400
Message-ID: <CAH8yC8kwgCMsmoAaP0m7s=nd_7=oRipYnPpQqcE-y2GqnDn3UQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com>
To: Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/nTQY9C-iL5G4BFEL3IaxkvVBXAk>
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] AES-OCB in TLS [New Version Notification for draft-zauner-tls-aes-ocb-03.txt]
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
Reply-To: noloader@gmail.com
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: Mon, 01 Jun 2015 17:22:05 -0000

On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Yaron Sheffer <yaronf.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 06/01/2015 07:30 PM, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>>
>>
>> If PSK is going to be yanked, then there should probably be an
>> non-public-key PAKE alternative.
>>
> PAKE means password-authenticated key exchange, and TLS-PSK is not suitable
> for use with (short, memorable) passwords. See
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4279#section-7.2
>
> TLS-SRP is the right tool for that. It is public key based but does not
> require the whole PKI code bloat, so may be a good fit for
> resource-constrained devices.
>
Indeed, thanks. Sorry about that.

Jeff