Re: [IPsec] Call for WG adoption: draft-nir-ipsecme-chacha20-poly1305
On Feb 26, 2015, at 2:11 PM, Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org wrote: Greetings again. A few people have expressed interest in having https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nir-ipsecme-chacha20-poly1305 as a WG item for IPsecME. If you want this as a WG document, and you are willing to review drafts as they move through, please say so on this thread. If you are opposed to this being a WG document, please say so (and say why). Thanks in advance. This got very little interest, which surprised me. Without a few more people who will commit to review the document and offer comments, we can't really call it a WG work item. Is there really so little interest in new algorithms that are being adopted in other protocols? If you are an IPsec implementer, it would be very useful to know whether or not you would support adding this algorithm to your implementation, and why. --Paul Hoffman ___ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
Re: [IPsec] Call for WG adoption: draft-nir-ipsecme-chacha20-poly1305
On Mar 6, 2015, at 6:01 PM, Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org wrote: On Feb 26, 2015, at 2:11 PM, Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org wrote: Greetings again. A few people have expressed interest in having https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nir-ipsecme-chacha20-poly1305 as a WG item for IPsecME. If you want this as a WG document, and you are willing to review drafts as they move through, please say so on this thread. If you are opposed to this being a WG document, please say so (and say why). Thanks in advance. This got very little interest, which surprised me. Without a few more people who will commit to review the document and offer comments, we can't really call it a WG work item. Is there really so little interest in new algorithms that are being adopted in other protocols? If you are an IPsec implementer, it would be very useful to know whether or not you would support adding this algorithm to your implementation, and why. Obviously I’m in favor of adoption, as I’m the author. [vendor hat on] If (when?) this becomes an RFC, Check Point will implement this, in all likelihood this year or early next year. I of course can’t promise dates or versions when this is delivered as a feature in our product - that is more of a UI decision, and out of my hands. Yoav ___ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
Re: [IPsec] Call for WG adoption: draft-nir-ipsecme-chacha20-poly1305
On Fri, 6 Mar 2015, Paul Hoffman wrote: This got very little interest, which surprised me. Without a few more people who will commit to review the document and offer comments, we can't really call it a WG work item. Is there really so little interest in new algorithms that are being adopted in other protocols? If you are an IPsec implementer, it would be very useful to know whether or not you would support adding this algorithm to your implementation, and why. libreswan will add support for this algorithm in IKE and use the kernel implementation for ESP. Even with low interest, this should be taken on by the WG, or else we will just get another private use number like SERPENT(252) or TWOFISH(253) or KAME_NULL(251) that everyone will use. Paul ___ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
Re: [IPsec] Call for WG adoption: draft-nir-ipsecme-chacha20-poly1305
I've read the draft and favor adoption as a working group item. Although I can't speak for my company, I would push for, and expect, support to be added to a future product release once reviewed and advanced. Jim Knowles -Original Message- From: IPsec [mailto:ipsec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman Sent: Friday, March 06, 2015 8:01 AM To: IPsecME WG Subject: Re: [IPsec] Call for WG adoption: draft-nir-ipsecme-chacha20-poly1305 On Feb 26, 2015, at 2:11 PM, Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org wrote: Greetings again. A few people have expressed interest in having https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nir-ipsecme-chacha20-poly1305 as a WG item for IPsecME. If you want this as a WG document, and you are willing to review drafts as they move through, please say so on this thread. If you are opposed to this being a WG document, please say so (and say why). Thanks in advance. This got very little interest, which surprised me. Without a few more people who will commit to review the document and offer comments, we can't really call it a WG work item. Is there really so little interest in new algorithms that are being adopted in other protocols? If you are an IPsec implementer, it would be very useful to know whether or not you would support adding this algorithm to your implementation, and why. --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
Re: [IPsec] Call for WG adoption: draft-nir-ipsecme-chacha20-poly1305
Hi, I support adoption this draft as WG document. Valery Smyslov. - Original Message - From: Paul Hoffman paul.hoff...@vpnc.org To: IPsecME WG ipsec@ietf.org Sent: Friday, February 27, 2015 1:11 AM Subject: [IPsec] Call for WG adoption: draft-nir-ipsecme-chacha20-poly1305 Greetings again. A few people have expressed interest in having https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nir-ipsecme-chacha20-poly1305 as a WG item for IPsecME. If you want this as a WG document, and you are willing to review drafts as they move through, please say so on this thread. If you are opposed to this being a WG document, please say so (and say why). Thanks in advance. --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
[IPsec] Call for WG adoption: draft-nir-ipsecme-chacha20-poly1305
Greetings again. A few people have expressed interest in having https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-nir-ipsecme-chacha20-poly1305 as a WG item for IPsecME. If you want this as a WG document, and you are willing to review drafts as they move through, please say so on this thread. If you are opposed to this being a WG document, please say so (and say why). Thanks in advance. --Paul Hoffman ___ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
