Subject: [TLS] Working Group interest draft-merkle-tls-brainpool-00

From: "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 21:36:58 +0000

The authors of draft-merkle-tls-brainpool-00.txt have requested that the working group take on this work.   I'm not sure if there is sufficient interest to bring this into the working group.   If you are interested in this work please send a note to the list indicating if you can be counted on for reviews and/or text changes a necessary.  If you think the working group should not take on this work please state why.    Please respond by April 22, 2013.

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2013 02:11:10 +0200

"Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <[email-masked]> writes:

> The authors of draft-merkle-tls-brainpool-00.txt have requested that
> the working group take on this work.  I'm not sure if there is
> sufficient interest to bring this into the working group.  If you are
> interested in this work please send a note to the list indicating if
> you can be counted on for reviews and/or text changes a necessary.  If
> you think the working group should not take on this work please state
> why.  Please respond by April 22, 2013.

I support taking on this work.  I did a quick review and noticed this:

OLD:
   Usage of elliptic curves for authentication and key agreement in TLS
   1.1 and TLS 2.0 is defined in [RFC4492].  While the ASN.1 object
     ^         ^^^
NEW.
   Usage of elliptic curves for authentication and key agreement in TLS
   1.0 and TLS 1.1 is defined in [RFC4492].  While the ASN.1 object
     ^         ^^^

/Simon

---

From: "Dan Harkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2013 18:58:03 -0700 (PDT)

On Tue, April 2, 2013 2:36 pm, Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) wrote:
> The authors of draft-merkle-tls-brainpool-00.txt have requested that the
> working group take on this work.   I'm not sure if there is sufficient
> interest to bring this into the working group.   If you are interested in
> this work please send a note to the list indicating if you can be counted
> on for reviews and/or text changes a necessary.  If you think the working
> group should not take on this work please state why.    Please respond by
> April 22, 2013.

  I support this work and can be counted on for reviews and also to validate
the test vectors.

  Dan.

---

From: "Michael Staubermann" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 12:39:35 +0200

I support this work an can be counted on for reviews.

There is already a published document from the European OMS Group
(Metering), referring to TLS NamedCurved IDs for Brainpool ECC:
http://www.oms-group.org/download/OMS-TR01_Security_v110.pdf (Chapter 7.1,
Table 11)

If no dedicated IANA assignment is available for the Brainpool curves, it is
likely that the "Reserved for Private" use range of the EC named curved
registry (65025-65279) will be used for the TBDs which may lead to future
"Private" Assignment collisions. 

I agree with the proposal to start (in 2013) with 256bit curves and leave
the 192bit and 224bit curves out for TLS.

-mst