Re: [TLS] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-sheffer-tls-bcp-00.txt

Michael Ströder <michael@stroeder.com> Mon, 09 September 2013 16:32 UTC

Return-Path: <michael@stroeder.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0C7221F9DF3 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 09:32:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 38G6oZfGWNiX for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 09:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from srv1.stroeder.com (srv1.stroeder.com [213.240.180.113]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F40AF11E8112 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 09:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by srv1.stroeder.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C039D6023B; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 18:31:02 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at stroeder.com
Received: from srv1.stroeder.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (srv1.stroeder.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s-xwxagapYoj; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 18:30:56 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from nb2.stroeder.local (unknown [10.1.0.2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by srv1.stroeder.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 27A2C6021F; Mon, 9 Sep 2013 16:30:56 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <522DF7BF.7080608@stroeder.com>
Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 18:30:55 +0200
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Michael_Str=F6der?= <michael@stroeder.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:23.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/23.0 SeaMonkey/2.20
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Gutmann <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz>, "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
References: <9A043F3CF02CD34C8E74AC1594475C7344731843@uxcn10-6.UoA.auckland.ac.nz>
In-Reply-To: <9A043F3CF02CD34C8E74AC1594475C7344731843@uxcn10-6.UoA.auckland.ac.nz>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha1; boundary="------------ms030203040206000002070908"
Subject: Re: [TLS] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-sheffer-tls-bcp-00.txt
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Mon, 09 Sep 2013 16:32:42 -0000

Peter Gutmann wrote:
> Why at least 2048 bits?  What's wrong with 1280, or 1536, which will be quite
> a lot faster.

I vaguely remember that you brought up your doubts about bigger key-lengths
already somewhere else quite a while ago.

Do you have numbers about the relative and absolute performance impact?
Personally I don't see performance problems but I can't prove my position with
numbers.

Ciao, Michael.