Hello, I wanted to provide some thoughts and suggestions on draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp-01. Especially I am focusing on recommendations on ciphersuites. Maybe focusing on specific ciphersuites is outside the scope of this work, so it might not fit in this doc. If so please let me know.
- Ephemeral vs Static DHE in TLS negotiation is not addressed in section 4.2. Static DH should be recommended to be avoided. - _anon_ ciphersuites are not addressed. They should be avoided as well. - MD5 is not addressed and not mentioned as avoided. Reference to RFC6151o culd be added here. - In general, the draft's sections 3.4 and 3.5 make recommendations about good ciphersuites and security levels and ciphersuites that are "ok if there is no other options" like 1024 RSA, but it doesn't address which ciphersuites should be avoided, which are legacy to be used if no other options are available. I believe the "secure ciphersuites" can be "algorithmized" with the use of a IANA table successfully to benefit the industry's implementers. I am not sure if the scope of this document is to address it or maybe that should be a separate document and IANA table, but I wanted to bring it to the author's attention. Regards, Panos Kampanakis Cisco Systems
_______________________________________________ Uta mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
