On Tue, 22 Sep 2020, Andrew Cagney wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 at 21:36, Paul Wouters <[email protected]> wrote: On Tue, 22 Sep 2020, Andrew Cagney wrote:> Now that the parser can accept <aead>-NONE- <prf>-<dh>, should "NONE" be included when logging those proposals? For instance: > > OLD: > algparse -v2 'ike=aes_gcm-sha1-dh21' > AES_GCM_16-HMAC_SHA1-DH21 > algparse -v2 'ike=aes_gcm_16-none-hmac_sha1-dh21' > AES_GCM_16-HMAC_SHA1-DH21 > > NEW: > algparse -v2 'ike=aes_gcm-sha1-dh21' > AES_GCM_16-NONE-HMAC_SHA1-DH21 > algparse -v2 'ike=aes_gcm_16-none-hmac_sha1-dh21' > AES_GCM_16-NONE-HMAC_SHA1-DH21 > > the main reason is to avoid any confusion over how integrity is being computed. I think that would be good, yes. > As a follow-up, what about non-AEAD algorithms; which get really unwieldy. I'm not sure what you mean? algparse -v2 'ike=aes-sha2-dh31' AES_CBC-HMAC_SHA2_256-DH31 vs the canonical: algparse -v2 'ike=aes-sha2-dh31' AES_CBC-HMAC_SHA2_256_128-HMAC_SHA2_256-DH31
Oh I see. do we repeat the PRF after INTEG because these are always the same in the non-AEAD case. I think I'm fine not doing it, since we don't support prf != integ unless AEAD. It would be more consistent to do it. I have no strong opinion on what's better. Paul _______________________________________________ Swan-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.libreswan.org/mailman/listinfo/swan-dev
