Re: [TLS] PR #604 Change "supported_groups" to "supported_kems"

2016-09-13 Thread Kyle Rose
To be honest, the purist in me likes the general idea here, though I think I prefer "kex" as I'm used to that with SSH. Then again, that isn't even quite correct, as the most popular mechanism is DH, which is key agreement based on the exchange of inputs to a formula: no keys are actually exchange

Re: [TLS] PR #604 Change "supported_groups" to "supported_kems"

2016-09-13 Thread William Whyte
I'd like to just check and see if there are any objections to this PR. There seems no reason to bake a particular cryptographic family into our terminology. This is a low-cost change that will save us from looking silly in a few years time. Cheers, William On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Sean T

Re: [TLS] PR #604 Change "supported_groups" to "supported_kems"

2016-09-13 Thread Sean Turner
There appears to be no consensus to adopt the change proposed by this PR. The small condolence here is that the name+semantics for this extension has been changed once before and if the extension really needs to be renamed in 5-7 years we’ve got precedence for doing so. spt > On Aug 29, 2016,

[TLS] PR #604 Change "supported_groups" to "supported_kems"

2016-08-29 Thread Zhenfei Zhang
Hi list, I have created a pull request https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/pull/604 I would like to suggest that we change the terminology "NamedGroup" to "KeyExchangeMethod". In [1], it is suggested that we redefine the syntax, which leads to the separation of public key crypto and symmetr