Subject: [TLS] ECDH_anon

From: Martin Thomson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 14:51:39 +1100

4472bis has a TBD regarding a missing "E" in the name of ECDHE_anon
cipher suites.

I raised an issue: https://github.com/tlswg/rfc4492bis/issues/17

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 08:40:23 +0200

> On 27 Jan 2016, at 5:51 AM, Martin Thomson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

Quoting:

> My view: just because DH_anon is confused, doesn't mean we can't fix it for ECDH(E).

OTOH RFC 4492 has been around for a while. Renaming the label now could cause confusion. Another point to consider is that we’re deprecating all the fixed ECDH ciphersuites, so now all ECDH is ECDHE.

So, I don’t know…

Yoav

---

From: Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 09:13:34 +0100

> I raised an issue: https://github.com/tlswg/rfc4492bis/issues/17

My understanding of DH_anon and ECDH_anon is that they were made to be
used with static keys so even though anonymous one could verify that he
connected to the same server by checking the server's keys. I don't
believe anyone actually implemented that mode (I'm mostly speculating)
and most of the anon usage is with ephemeral keys, thus this proposal
makes sense.

However if the name is changed to underline the ephemeral part, it
would be nice to document the change of the intended purpose of these
ciphersuites.

regards,
Nikos