Re: [TLS] Comments on TLS-ECJ-PAKE draft

"Dan Harkins" <> Mon, 18 July 2016 10:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9710212D740 for <>; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 03:06:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8r2-rCwQHAXP for <>; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 03:06:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A40712D76D for <>; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 03:06:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 870F51FE034E; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 03:06:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (SquirrelMail authenticated user by with HTTP; Mon, 18 Jul 2016 03:06:26 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 03:06:26 -0700
From: Dan Harkins <>
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.14 [SVN]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Comments on TLS-ECJ-PAKE draft
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2016 10:06:43 -0000

  Hi Robert,

  This draft moves the NamedCurve/EllipticCurveList into the
ClientHello, and since the client sends X1 and ZKP(X1) in the
ClientHello it means that is going to be a list of 1. It basically
moves the client's key exchange portion from ClientKeyExchange into
ClientHello. So basically, if a client wants to do TLS-ECJ-PAKE
then that's the only thing it can offer and the parameters of
that exchange are all selected by the client, not the server.

  This is a fundamental change to TLS. If it's going to be offered,
it's the only thing that can be offered and therefore the only thing
that can be used. Seems like for a deployment either it's never used
or it's the only thing used and that makes it sort of a proprietary
protocol, not TLS.


On Thu, June 16, 2016 2:51 am, Robert Cragie wrote:
> I would like to ask the working group for comments on the TLS-ECJ-PAKE
> draft:
> Some brief notes:
> * This intended status is informational.
> * The draft is based on TLS/DTLS 1.2 as the Thread group required basis on
> existing RFCs wherever possible. For that reason and due to the WGs focus
> on TLS 1.3, I have understood from the chairs that it would not have
> received a great deal of attention from the WG, hence the intended status
> of informational.
> * The draft reflects the current use of the TLS_ECJPAKE_WITH_AES_128_CCM_8
> cipher suite in Thread (
> * There is an experimental implementation in mbed TLS (
> * The Thread group would like to get IANA assignments for 4 cipher suite
> values and one ExtensionType value as soon as possible.
> * There are at least four independent implementations, which have been
> used
> in interop. testing over the last 18 months.
> * The security considerations recommend restriction of the use of this
> cipher suite to Thread and similar applications and recommends it should
> not be used with web browsers and servers (mainly due to the long
> discussions regarding the use of PAKEs on this and other mailing lists).
> Robert
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list