Also forwarding to TLS I have created https://github.com/tlswg/rfc4492bis/pull/34 <https://github.com/tlswg/rfc4492bis/pull/34>
I’ll merge this if there are no objections just before the submission cut-off and submit a new version. Yoav > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Yoav Nir <ynir.i...@gmail.com> > Subject: Re: OPS-DIR review of draft-ietf-tls-rfc4492bis-14 > Date: 9 March 2017 at 8:34:13 GMT+2 > To: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <bwi...@bwijnen.net> > Cc: draft-ietf-tls-rfc4492bis....@ietf.org, "ops-...@ietf.org" > <ops-...@ietf.org> > > Hi, Bert. > > Thanks for the review. See below > > On 8 Mar 2017, at 20:14, Bert Wijnen (IETF) <bwi...@bwijnen.net > <mailto:bwi...@bwijnen.net>> wrote: > >> I did the OPS Directorate review for draft-ietf-tls-rfc4492bis-14 >> >> Summary:ready for publication >> >> As far as I can tell, this document describes a number of ecc >> cipher suites that can be used by TLS servers and clients. It describes >> the interaction btween the client and server for the various cipher >> suites used. >> >> So for all I can tell, this has no operational or network management >> impacts on the internet. >> >> >> NITS: >> - abstract states: >> >> protocol. In particular, it specifies the use of Ephemeral Elliptic >> Curve Diffie-Hellman (ECDHE).... >> >> I would have expected the acronym to be EECDH ??? > > Well, yes. But this was the initialism used in the original RFC 4492 in 2006, > and now it’s used everywhere including in ciphersuite names and in codebases > everywhere. > Nor was this invented for 4492. Finite field Ephemeral Diffie-Hellman has > been referred to as DHE at least as far back as the TLS 1.0 RFC (RFC 2246) > from 1999. Probably earlier. > >> in fact the text in section 2: >> >> All of them use Ephemeral ECDH (ECDHE).... >> makes me think that indeed EECDH is a much better acronym or abbreviation >> But you can ignore this, it is probably just my preference how I would >> abbreviate. > > I agree. But the term is used in codebases everywhere. We’re probably as > stuck with it as we are with the referer field: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-5.5.2 > <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7231#section-5.5.2> > > Another issue that came up in the discussion is in section 2.3: ECDH_anon > uses an ephemeral EC key, so it should have been ECDHE_anon. This also > follows the naming of the anonymous finite-field diffie hellman in 2246: > DH_anon. We decided not to change that. > >> - Introdiuction states: >> >> o the use of the Elliptic Curve Diffie-Hellman key agreement scheme with >> ephemeral keys to establish the TLS premaster secret, and o the use of ECDSA >> certificates for authentication of TLS peers. >> >> Why do you use the full text (not acronym) in the first bullet and only an >> acronym in the 2nd bullet? Bert > > Good point. Since these are expanded in the abstract, I guess I can just use > the initialism in there. But I definitely should mention EdDSA in the second > bullet. > > Yoav
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
