Re: [TLS] consensus on adopting draft-mcgrew-tls-aes-ccm and draft-mcgrew-tls-aes-ccm-ecc
"Dan Harkins" <dharkins@lounge.org> Thu, 01 December 2011 20:02 UTC
Return-Path: <dharkins@lounge.org>
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 1F7DC11E80EF for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 12:02:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.265
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.265 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, IP_NOT_FRIENDLY=0.334, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 T44PfqqGW4dz for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 12:02:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from colo.trepanning.net (colo.trepanning.net [69.55.226.174]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DC7E11E8147 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 12:01:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from www.trepanning.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by colo.trepanning.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDCAC20054; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 12:01:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 216.31.249.246 (SquirrelMail authenticated user dharkins@lounge.org) by www.trepanning.net with HTTP; Thu, 1 Dec 2011 12:01:27 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <418f9612c158e2e611ca393bc07a4d41.squirrel@www.trepanning.net>
In-Reply-To: <107EC16E-ACCD-4DC7-A4F1-1EA5434C154C@cisco.com>
References: <107EC16E-ACCD-4DC7-A4F1-1EA5434C154C@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 12:01:27 -0800
From: Dan Harkins <dharkins@lounge.org>
To: Joe Salowey <jsalowey@cisco.com>
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
Cc: tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] consensus on adopting draft-mcgrew-tls-aes-ccm and draft-mcgrew-tls-aes-ccm-ecc
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: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 20:02:20 -0000
On Wed, November 30, 2011 1:34 pm, Joe Salowey wrote: > The chairs would like to see if there is consensus in the TLS working > group to adopt draft-mcgrew-tls-aes-ccm and draft-mcgrew-tls-aes-ccm-ecc > as working group items. These drafts define AES-CCM cipher suites for > TLS. The Zigbee smart energy group has interest in these drafts. These > drafts only deal with a AES-CCM and not with Zigbee's AES-CCM* which is a > super set of AES-CCM. The authors are requesting standards track for > these ciphers. Please note that there is an IPR declaration listed for > draft-mcgrew-tls-aes-ccm-ecc available here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1443/. This declaration has been updated > from previous declarations. Please respond to the following by December > 14, 2011 : > > - Do you object to taking these drafts on as working group items? (Please > state the reason for you objection) No. > - Would you contribute time to review and provide text for the documents > when needed? Yes. > - Do you object to standards track status for these documents?(Please > state the reason for you objection) I have a mild objection. There is no point in doing CCM. GCM is faster, if you're gonna implement an AEAD scheme implement GCM. If you really want a 2-pass AEAD scheme you can use RFC 5297 and you get misuse-resistance for free (basically the security of the mode does not collapse if you reuse a nonce/counter). The only group I know pushing CCM is actually pushing CCM* and, as you note, this isn't CCM*. Dan.
- [TLS] consensus on adopting draft-mcgrew-tls-aes-… Joe Salowey
- Re: [TLS] consensus on adopting draft-mcgrew-tls-… Yoav Nir
- Re: [TLS] consensus on adopting draft-mcgrew-tls-… Don Sturek
- Re: [TLS] consensus on adopting draft-mcgrew-tls-… Peter Gutmann
- [TLS] 答复: consensus on adopting draft-mcgrew-tls-… zhou.sujing
- Re: [TLS] consensus on adopting draft-mcgrew-tls-… Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
- Re: [TLS] consensus on adopting draft-mcgrew-tls-… Dan Harkins
- Re: [TLS] consensus on adopting draft-mcgrew-tls-… Don Sturek
- Re: [TLS] consensus on adopting draft-mcgrew-tls-… Rene Struik
- Re: [TLS] consensus on adopting draft-mcgrew-tls-… Robert Cragie
- Re: [TLS] consensus on adopting draft-mcgrew-tls-… Martin Rex
- Re: [TLS] consensus on adopting draft-mcgrew-tls-… Robert Cragie