Hi, There is a need to have that kind of document for 3GPP/SA3. Unless someone has already written the update, I can provide one by the end of the week.
BR, Daniel -----Original Message----- From: IPsec [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Richardson Sent: Monday, September 28, 2015 3:41 PM To: Yoav Nir Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [IPsec] RFC4307 update Yoav Nir <[email protected]> wrote: >> Tero Kivinen <[email protected]> wrote: >>> We did update cryptographic algorithms for ESP and AH >>> (RFC4305->4835->7321), but we have never updated the RFC4307. >> >>> I think there should be update for that document too, as it now >>> defines following madantory to implement algorithms: >> >>> 1024 MODP Group, ENCR_3DES, PRF_HMAC_SHA1, AUTH_HMAC_SHA1_96. >> >>> And I think at least the 1024-bit MODP groupp, and perhaps the 3DES >>> also should be changed to something more suitable. For exmple >>> 2048-bit MODP group and ENCR_AES_CBC... >> >> I guess the can-o-worms called ECDSA will show up too as a SHOULD+. > Does it have to? 4307 does not mention any signature algorithms. ECDH > with NIST curves and/or the new curves might should make an appearance. Sorry, that's what I meant to write, but my finger slipped. >> Does 3DES go to MAY? > I think so. >> Does SHA1 go to MUST-? >> >> We hadn't listed SHA2 at all before. We also have no GCM/CCM things >> specified. >> >> Are we obligted to list them as SHOULD+ for awhile? > I think we should reflect what is common/best practice now. AES-GCM is > now widely implemented and faster than the combination of AES-CBC and > HMAC-SHA-something. I think it’s a prime candidate for MUST. CTR was > always uncommon. ChaCha20+Poly1305 is so new that it can't be MUST this > iteration. Maybe next time. Agreed. -- Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works -= IPv6 IoT consulting =- _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
