Thanks. I agree. I think that the existing text is more helpful to the implementer. If the details of the analysis do in the document, it should be in the security considerations.
Russ > On Mar 9, 2017, at 9:18 PM, Sean Turner <s...@sn3rd.com> wrote: > > After many emails about the wording for s5.5 Limits on Key Usage, it’s time > to judge consensus on whether or not to make any changes to that section. > The important thing is that the SHOULD implement the key update from s4.5.3 > was never in question. There was no consensus to change the actual GCM > limits on key usage; again the text related to ChaCha20/Poly1305 never really > was in question. The discussion has wound down to whether it was better to > count records or bytes/blocks for the GCM limit calculation. We didn’t see > any strong consensus to change this description. Therefore, we see no > consensus to change the text in s5.5. ekr please close PR#765 and PR#769. > > J&S > >> On Feb 10, 2017, at 12:07 AM, Sean Turner <s...@sn3rd.com> wrote: >> >> All, >> >> We’ve got two outstanding PRs that propose changes to draft-ietf-tls-tls13 >> Section 5.5 “Limits on Key Usage”. As it relates to rekeying, these limits >> have been discussed a couple of times and we need to resolve once and for >> all whether the TLS WG wants to: >> >> a) Close these two PRs and go with the existing text [0] >> b) Adopt PR#765 [1] >> c) Adopt PR#769 [2] >> >> Please indicate you preference to the TLS mailing list before Feb 17. Note >> that unless there’s clear consensus to change the text will remain as is >> (i.e., option a). >> >> J&S >> >> [0] https://tlswg.github.io/tls13-spec/#rfc.section.5.5 >> [1] https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/pull/765 >> [2] https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/pull/769 _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
