Why does this draft normatively depend on TLS 1.3, even if the cipher suites defined in this draft use the old syntax, which TLS 1.3 no longer uses?
Best, Xiaoyin From: Sean Turner<mailto:s...@sn3rd.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2016 9:19 AM To: Daniel Migault<mailto:daniel.miga...@ericsson.com> Cc: tls@ietf.org<mailto:tls@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [TLS] early IANA code point assignment request for draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-psk-aead I think there might be consensus to ask for code points but not early. This draft can’t really proceed any faster than the TLS1.3 and 4492bis drafts. spt > On Oct 17, 2016, at 12:03, Daniel Migault <daniel.miga...@ericsson.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > I am not clear what the consensus is for the following points. Is there any > consensus for requesting the following ones? > > BR, > Daniel > > TLS_ECDHE_PSK_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 = {0xTBD; 0xTBD} {0xD0,0x01}; > TLS_ECDHE_PSK_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 = {0xTBD; 0xTBD} {0xD0,0x02}; > TLS_ECDHE_PSK_WITH_AES_128_CCM_8_SHA256 = {0xTBD; 0xTBD} {0xD0,0x03}; > TLS_ECDHE_PSK_WITH_AES_256_CCM_8_SHA384 = {0xTBD; 0xTBD} {0xD0,0x04}; > TLS_ECDHE_PSK_WITH_AES_128_CCM_SHA256 = {0xTBD; 0xTBD} {0xD0,0x05}; > TLS_ECDHE_PSK_WITH_AES_256_CCM_SHA384 = {0xTBD; 0xTBD} {0xD0,0x06}; > > > > On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 7:11 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thom...@gmail.com> > wrote: > I'm mainly just looking to economize on different configurations. > > On 9 October 2016 at 16:32, John Mattsson <john.matts...@ericsson.com> wrote: > > Hi Martin, > > > > > > AES_256_CCM_8 was not in the first versions of the draft but added later > > after request from IoT people (probably afraid of quantum computers). > > > > > > While I think it makes very much sense to have short tags in wireless > > radio, I do not know how large need there is for AES-256 in IoT for > > constrained devices, or how large the need would be to truncate the tag in > > these cases. > > > > > > My current understanding is that Grover’s algorithm may never be more > > cost-effective than a cluster of classical computers, and that quantum > > computers therefore likely do not affect the lifetime of AES-128. > > > > > > I do not have any strong opinions regarding keeping AES_256_CCM_8 or not. > > We should not give the impression that AES-256 is needed for practical > > resistance to quantum computers anytime soon, it is however a requirement > > for use by US government. Agree that AES_128_CCM_8 and AES_256_CCM seems > > like the best choices in most cases. > > > > > > Cheers, > > John > > > > > > > > On 12/08/16 08:29, "TLS on behalf of Martin Thomson" <tls-boun...@ietf.org > > on behalf of martin.thom...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>Looking at those emails, I am prompted to wonder if anyone can justify > >>the existence of a ciphersuite with a double-sized key and half-sized > >>authentication tag. RFC 6655 doesn't really explain how that is a > >>useful thing. > >> > >>On 10 August 2016 at 19:33, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <n...@redhat.com> > >>wrote: > >>> On Tue, 2016-08-09 at 14:45 -0400, Sean Turner wrote: > >>>> All, > >>>> > >>>> We've received a request for early IANA assignments for the 6 cipher > >>>> suites listed in https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-ecdh > >>>> e-psk-aead/. Please respond before August 23rd if you have concerns > >>>> about early code point assignment for these cipher suites. > >>> > >>> I have previously raised an issue [0] on these ciphersuites. The same > >>> requirement was noted also by Peter Dettman as something special in > >>> [1]. However, there has been no reaction from the authors (now in CC). > >>> > >>> regards, > >>> Nikos > >>> > >>> [0]. > >>>https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/4PZsc_Dy-aT299BYrlBKvZs0BOQ > >>> [1]. > >>>https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/onEkdgH30eZgWs8v5Rp-CUqCHds > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> TLS mailing list > >>> TLS@ietf.org > >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls > >> > >>_______________________________________________ > >>TLS mailing list > >>TLS@ietf.org > >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls > > > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
