On Mon, 3 Mar 2014, Tero Kivinen wrote:
Hmm... actually we should most like use the same names we use in the
IANA registry. For example we have 3 different types of AES-GCM:
18 AES-GCM with a 8 octet ICV [RFC4106] [RFC5282]
19 AES-GCM with a 12 octet ICV [RFC4106] [RFC5282]
20 AES-GCM with a 16 octet ICV [RFC4106] [RFC5282]
Which one of those is the one that is moved to SHOULD+? Should we just
pick one of them, and say that it is the one we prefer, or should all
implementations implement all of them? AES-CCM has similar thing, but
as they are moving to MAY it does not really matter.
Actually yes. I talked to one of the authors of RFC 4106, John Viega,
a while ago and he said:
"Some people seemed to think embedded devices would want to use truncated
tags. in this day in age, I would recommend AGAINST tag truncation"
So I would be happy to only move ID 20 to SHOULD+ and actually demote
18 and 19.
Paul
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
IPsec@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
