Re: [TLS] Call for WG adoption of draft-mattsson-tls-ecdhe-psk-aead
On Tuesday, April 26, 2016 11:20:40 am Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > If you are already paying the price of the asymmetric crypto (in terms > of flash usage/CPU speed/RAM utilization then just switch to a raw > public key or a certificate based ciphersuite (since there is very > little additional overhead). > > I suspect the usage is more for the we or so? (assuming that was supposed to be "web") With resumption now done through PSK in TLS 1.3, these suites will be desired for that in addition to systems that will be using PSK as their primary suite. Without them, the only FS AEAD PSK AES suites are DHE, and we'd much prefer ECDHE be available. Dave ___ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
Re: [TLS] Call for WG adoption of draft-mattsson-tls-ecdhe-psk-aead
My 5 cents. For the IoT environment this ciphersuite is not very useful. If you want the best possible performance, lowest RAM utilization and use as little flash as possible then you go for a plain PSK ciphersuite (without DH/ECDHE). If you are already paying the price of the asymmetric crypto (in terms of flash usage/CPU speed/RAM utilization then just switch to a raw public key or a certificate based ciphersuite (since there is very little additional overhead). I suspect the usage is more for the we or so? Ciao Hannes On 04/25/2016 05:17 PM, Sean Turner wrote: > All, > > draft-mattsson-tls-ecdhe-psk-aead includes some cipher suites that are needed > for TLS1.3. We need to get these officially registered so the chairs would > like to hear whether there is WG support for adopting > draft-mattsson-tls-ecdhe-psk-aead. Please let us know whether you: > > - Support adoption and are willing to review/comment on the draft by > 201600429; the chairs still need people to review the draft to show there’s > support for it as we process it down the path. > > - Object to the adoption of this draft as a WG item, please respond to the > list indicating why by 201600429. > > Note 1: This draft will get published using the new rules we’ve been > concocting on the list so the IANA considerations section will get tweaked as > we settle on what words need to be included. > > Note 2: The other option is to put the registrations in the TLS1.3 spec, but > that would add four pages that I’m pretty sure no implementer is going to > read so there seems to be little point in included the registrations in the > TLS1.3 spec. And, these cipher suites do apply to TLS1.2. > > Cheers, > > J > ___ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls > signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
Re: [TLS] Call for WG adoption of draft-mattsson-tls-ecdhe-psk-aead
On Mon, 2016-04-25 at 08:17 -0700, Sean Turner wrote: > All, > > draft-mattsson-tls-ecdhe-psk-aead includes some cipher suites that > are needed for TLS1.3. We need to get these officially registered so > the chairs would like to hear whether there is WG support for > adopting draft-mattsson-tls-ecdhe-psk-aead. Please let us know > whether you: I support this draft. However see comment below. The text: "For the AES-128 cipher suites, the TLS Pseudorandom Function (PRF) with SHA-256 as the hash function SHALL be used and Clients and Servers MUST NOT negotiate curves of less than 255 bits." is very tricky. Implementations do not restrict ciphersuites based on curves (there is no such notion in TLS, nor mentioned in rfc4492), and I cannot even think how a TLS handshake implementation would look like if each different ciphersuite has specific curve requirements. Note that this requirement is unlike the suiteB RFC (rfc6460) that also restricts the curves. SuiteB specifies a profile/set of parameters which include ciphersuites, while this draft only defines ciphersuite code points. If a side goal of this draft is to deprecate the <255 bit elliptic curves from TLS 1.2, or to unify security levels across ciphersuites then I'd recommend to do that with a separate RFC rather than bundling it into a code-point assignment RFC. regards, Nikos ___ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
Re: [TLS] Call for WG adoption of draft-mattsson-tls-ecdhe-psk-aead
Yes, adopt. We need something approximately like this and I think that it can proceed well ahead of TLS 1.3. (Dave's nit seems reasonable, but adoption lets us fix that in the working group.) On 26 April 2016 at 05:31, Andrei Popov <andrei.po...@microsoft.com> wrote: > I support adoption of this draft. No reason to limit ECDHE_PSK to CBC. > > Cheers, > > Andrei > > -Original Message- > From: TLS [mailto:tls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sean Turner > Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 8:22 AM > To: tls <tls@ietf.org> > Subject: Re: [TLS] Call for WG adoption of draft-mattsson-tls-ecdhe-psk-aead > > sigh and here as well - they should have been 20160510. > > spt > >> On Apr 25, 2016, at 08:17, Sean Turner <s...@sn3rd.com> wrote: >> >> All, >> >> draft-mattsson-tls-ecdhe-psk-aead includes some cipher suites that are >> needed for TLS1.3. We need to get these officially registered so the chairs >> would like to hear whether there is WG support for adopting >> draft-mattsson-tls-ecdhe-psk-aead. Please let us know whether you: >> >> - Support adoption and are willing to review/comment on the draft by >> 201600429; the chairs still need people to review the draft to show there’s >> support for it as we process it down the path. >> >> - Object to the adoption of this draft as a WG item, please respond to the >> list indicating why by 201600429. >> >> Note 1: This draft will get published using the new rules we’ve been >> concocting on the list so the IANA considerations section will get tweaked >> as we settle on what words need to be included. >> >> Note 2: The other option is to put the registrations in the TLS1.3 spec, but >> that would add four pages that I’m pretty sure no implementer is going to >> read so there seems to be little point in included the registrations in the >> TLS1.3 spec. And, these cipher suites do apply to TLS1.2. >> >> Cheers, >> >> J > > ___ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls > ___ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls ___ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
Re: [TLS] Call for WG adoption of draft-mattsson-tls-ecdhe-psk-aead
I support adoption of this draft. No reason to limit ECDHE_PSK to CBC. Cheers, Andrei -Original Message- From: TLS [mailto:tls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Sean Turner Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 8:22 AM To: tls <tls@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [TLS] Call for WG adoption of draft-mattsson-tls-ecdhe-psk-aead sigh and here as well - they should have been 20160510. spt > On Apr 25, 2016, at 08:17, Sean Turner <s...@sn3rd.com> wrote: > > All, > > draft-mattsson-tls-ecdhe-psk-aead includes some cipher suites that are needed > for TLS1.3. We need to get these officially registered so the chairs would > like to hear whether there is WG support for adopting > draft-mattsson-tls-ecdhe-psk-aead. Please let us know whether you: > > - Support adoption and are willing to review/comment on the draft by > 201600429; the chairs still need people to review the draft to show there’s > support for it as we process it down the path. > > - Object to the adoption of this draft as a WG item, please respond to the > list indicating why by 201600429. > > Note 1: This draft will get published using the new rules we’ve been > concocting on the list so the IANA considerations section will get tweaked as > we settle on what words need to be included. > > Note 2: The other option is to put the registrations in the TLS1.3 spec, but > that would add four pages that I’m pretty sure no implementer is going to > read so there seems to be little point in included the registrations in the > TLS1.3 spec. And, these cipher suites do apply to TLS1.2. > > Cheers, > > J ___ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls ___ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
[TLS] Call for WG adoption of draft-mattsson-tls-ecdhe-psk-aead
All, draft-mattsson-tls-ecdhe-psk-aead includes some cipher suites that are needed for TLS1.3. We need to get these officially registered so the chairs would like to hear whether there is WG support for adopting draft-mattsson-tls-ecdhe-psk-aead. Please let us know whether you: - Support adoption and are willing to review/comment on the draft by 201600429; the chairs still need people to review the draft to show there’s support for it as we process it down the path. - Object to the adoption of this draft as a WG item, please respond to the list indicating why by 201600429. Note 1: This draft will get published using the new rules we’ve been concocting on the list so the IANA considerations section will get tweaked as we settle on what words need to be included. Note 2: The other option is to put the registrations in the TLS1.3 spec, but that would add four pages that I’m pretty sure no implementer is going to read so there seems to be little point in included the registrations in the TLS1.3 spec. And, these cipher suites do apply to TLS1.2. Cheers, J ___ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
