> The next draft changes AES-128-CBC to AES-CBC, and says: > > In the following sections, all AES modes are for 128-bit AES. 192-bit AES > MAY be supported for those modes, but the requirements here are for 128-bit > AES.
What about 256-bit AES keys? They should also be a "MAY". Thanks, --David > -----Original Message----- > From: IPsec [mailto:ipsec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman > Sent: Saturday, March 08, 2014 6:56 AM > To: ipsec > Subject: Re: [IPsec] Working Group Last Call: draft-ietf-ipsecme-esp-ah-reqts > > On Mar 3, 2014, at 12:02 PM, Valery Smyslov <sva...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > The draft lists the following trasforms based on AES cipher: > > > > AES-GCM > > AES-CCM > > AES-CTR > > AES-128-CBC > > AES-GMAC > > AES-XCBC-MAC-96 > > > > All these transforms, except for AES-XCBC-MAC-96, > > allows to be used with different key lengths - 128, 192 and 256 bits. > > It looks strange to me that, unlike the others, AES-128-CBC > > has key length explicitely specified in the draft. Why it differs in > > this respect from the others? What about AES-192-CBC and > > AES-256-CBC - are they also "MUST" or "MAY"? Or even "MUST NOT"? :-) > > > > I think the draft should either: > > - remove explicit key length from AES-128-CBC and make it just AES-CBC > > - add explicit key length to all other AES-based transforms (except for AES- > XCBC-MAC-96) > > - leave things as is, but explain why AES-CBC differs in this respect from > the others > > The next draft changes AES-128-CBC to AES-CBC, and says: > > In the following sections, all AES modes are for 128-bit AES. 192-bit AES > MAY be supported for those modes, but the requirements here are for 128-bit > AES. > > --Paul Hoffman > _______________________________________________ > IPsec mailing list > IPsec@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
