Subject: Re: [TLS] draft-ietf-tls-psk-new-mac-aes-gcm-01 : portfolio question

From: Peter Gutmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:38:49 +1200

"Blumenthal, Uri" <[email-masked]> writes:

>The biggest reason for keeping SHA-384 is its presence in the Suite B
>standard.

Argh, #&^$#*( Suite B again.  Couldn't we just firewall Suite B into its own
private corner for the USG to play with and not bother the rest of the world?
What makes the USG so special that it gets its oddball stuff included in
everything?  Why not GOST, or SEED, or SMS4, or Camellia, or whatever pet
algorithms other governments want to play with this week?

>I'll leave alone my personal opinion of this particular hash,

Well I've never been afraid to share my personal opinions with everyone :-).

Peter.

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 07:06:29 -0700

At Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:38:49 +1200,
Peter Gutmann wrote:
> everything?  Why not GOST,

In fact, TLS 1.2 contains accomodations specifically designed to
allow GOST.

> or SEED,

RFC 4162
RFC 4196

> or SMS4, or Camellia,

RFC 4132

> or whatever pet

Uh, that's exactly what we do.

-Ekr

---

From: "Blumenthal, Uri" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2008 10:21:20 -0400

1.  Because in my professional opinion, that stuff is not "oddball" (leaving aside SHA-384) and makes perfect cryptographic sense, as well as upcoming industrial standard, which you oddly constrict to "USG".
 2.  Does it bother you that we're having this conversing in (American? :-) English rather than French, German, Japanese,  Russian, or <other>?
 3.  GOST is encryption algorithm is "a blast form the past", nice but inadequate for the future. GOST hash is worth considering. GOST digital signature is comparable to what is proposed elsewhere.
 4.  It's not about sharing personal opinions per se (everybody's known to have them as surely as they have <you-know-what>). It's about the usefulness of such sharing.

--
Regards,
Uri
<Disclaimer>

On 8/24/08 08:38 AM, "Peter Gutmann" <[email-masked]> wrote:

Peter.