Hi Lakshminath, I am not sure that the group wants to use CCM. (If you are referring to this part of your mail.)
Ciao Hannes > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Lakshminath Dondeti [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Gesendet: Dienstag, 22. August 2006 11:44 > An: Hannes Tschofenig > Cc: emu@ietf.org > Betreff: Re: [Emu] EAP-GPSK: Ciphersuites > > I guess we agree to disagree. The addition integrity checksum is > spurious in my view and I believe we can define things so that > combined modes can be employed without encrypting anything, so I am > somewhat confused here. What's your opinion on the latter > part of my email? > > thanks, > Lakshminath > > At 05:12 PM 8/22/2006, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > >Hi Lakshminath, > > > >Lakshminath Dondeti schrieb: > >>At the expense of generating some confusion, here is my > take on this: > >>The objection is to having to carry multiple integrity checksums in > >>GPSK, if we used the combined mode *and* an integrity algorithm. > > > >I don't agree with you. There is no reason to optimize a few bits in > >a pre-shared secret method. > >Note that we are not talking about a protocol for data transfer. > >We wanted the flexibility to use different cipher suites. We do not > >only want to use cipher suites that provide authenticated encryption > >(since we almost have nothing to encrypt; currently 1 bit and almost > >no EAP method provides this functionality). > > > >Ciao > >Hannes > > > >>I think CCM is fine for instance, the only catch is that we need to > >>make sure and define AAD for CCM carefully to include appropriate > >>data into the integrity checksum calculation. So, once we define > >>CCM as the mode, we shouldn't need AES-CMAC-128 if > encryption is being used. > >>I would suggest using CCM and specifying the use of it fully so it > >>can be used without misunderstandings. If you want me to put some > >>time into writing that up, let me know. > >>cheers, > >>Lakshminath > >>At 10:55 PM 8/20/2006, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > >>>Hi all, > >>> > >>>the current version of the document > >>>http://tools.ietf.org/wg/emu/draft-clancy-emu-eap-shared-se cret-01.txt > >>>still supports AES-EAX: > >>> > >>> > +-----------+----+-------------+---------------+--------------------+ > >>> | CSuite/ | KS | Encryption | Integrity | Key > Derivation | > >>> | Specifier | | | | > Function | > >>> > +-----------+----+-------------+---------------+--------------------+ > >>> | 0x000001 | 16 | AES-EAX-128 | AES-CMAC-128 | > GKDF-128 | > >>> > +-----------+----+-------------+---------------+--------------------+ > >>> > >>>At the IETF#66 EMU meeting AES CCM was suggested. > >>> > >>>Later, it got the impression that AES-CBC was more appreciated. > >>>Should we update the draft with AES-CBC? > >>> > >>>Ciao > >>>Hannes > >>> > >>> > >>>_______________________________________________ > >>>Emu mailing list > >>>Emu@ietf.org > >>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu > > > _______________________________________________ > Emu mailing list > Emu@ietf.org > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu > _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
