Hi list,
exchanging arguments for N or Y again seems for me to be in vain.
Therefore my proposal to add the Y-period. For me that documents more
the fact, that the security trade off between security and resources is
changing over time. And so will the implementations and deployments.
best regards
Achim Kraus
Am 30.09.20 um 02:48 schrieb Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL:
Because PSK is one of the affordable and reliable quantum-resistant key
exchanges that work *today*? And done environments do not wish to do any EC
operations.
Yes, key management issues are real. Those who need it, understand the
implications.
Regards,
Uri
On Sep 29, 2020, at 20:30, Watson Ladd <[email protected]> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 12:49 PM Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL
<[email protected]> wrote:
I share Achim's concerns.
But I believe the explanations will turn out mostly useless in the real world, as the
"lawyers" of the industry are guaranteed to steer away from something "not
recommended".
In one word: bad.
Why is PSK so necessary? There are very few devices that can't handle
the occasional ECC operation. The key management and forward secrecy
issues with TLS-PSK are real. Steering applications that can afford
the CPU away from PSK and toward hybrid modes is a good thing and why
this registry exists imho.
--
Astra mortemque praestare gradatim
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
