[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: ietf-tls
Subject: Re: [TLS] Review of draft-kato-tls-rfc4132bis-00
From: KATO Akihiro <akato () po ! ntts ! co ! jp>
Date: 2008-03-06 7:40:41
Message-ID: 47CF9FF9.30406 () po ! ntts ! co ! jp
[Download RAW message or body]
Eric,
Thank you for reviewing and comments.
On 2008/03/05 2:53, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> $Id: draft-kato-tls-rfc4132bis-00-rev.txt,v 1.1 2008/03/04 17:32:45 ekr Exp $
>
> It's not clear to me why this document isn't simply an updated
> cut-and-paste of RFC 4132 with additional ciphers. In particular,
> this draft contains a large number of grammatical errors which
> have already been ironed out of 4132.
Sure, quality of this version of our draft is low. I-D repository
version will get through more internal review.
> It's not clear to me that we really need the combinatoric
> explosion of all possible key exchange and signature
> algorithms with Camellia.
Cipher suites combined CTR mode will remove. But one-side of Cipher
suite combined SHA-384 or SHA-512 will remain.
>
> I think it's a bad idea to specify HMAC-SHA-1 for use with
> the SHA-1 cipher suites. Note that all the suites in
> TLS 1.2 use SHA-256
I found this description for PRF. I'm going to change MAC section as
following;
Indicator of
Cipher Suite MAC PRF
SHA HMAC-SHA-1 P_SHA-256
SHA256 HMAC-SHA-256 P_SHA-256
SHA384 HMAC-SHA-384 P_SHA-256
SHA512 HMAC-SHA-512 P_SHA-256
>
> Why do we need a mandatory to implement Camellia cipher
> suite? TLS is quite capable of negotiating this stuff.
"Mandatory Cipher Suite" section will remove.
>
>
> -Ekr
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>
>
--
- KATO Akihiro
+ NTT Software Corporation
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic