Subject: [TLS] Last Call: <draft-mcgrew-tls-aes-ccm-03.txt> (AES-CCM Cipher Suites for TLS) to Proposed Standard

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 06:09:46 -0800

The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
the following document:
- 'AES-CCM Cipher Suites for TLS'
  <draft-mcgrew-tls-aes-ccm-03.txt> as a Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
[email-masked] mailing lists by 2012-03-13. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to [email-masked] instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract

   This memo describes the use of the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)
   in the Counter and CBC-MAC Mode (CCM) of operation within Transport
   Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram TLS (DTLS) to provide
   confidentiality and data origin authentication.  The AES-CCM
   algorithm is amenable to compact implementations, making it suitable
   for constrained environments.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcgrew-tls-aes-ccm/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mcgrew-tls-aes-ccm/

No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

---

From: Joe Salowey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:33:07 -0800

FYI

Begin forwarded message:

> From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
> Date: February 14, 2012 6:09:46 AM PST
> To: IETF-Announce <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Last Call: <draft-mcgrew-tls-aes-ccm-03.txt> (AES-CCM Cipher Suites for TLS) to Proposed Standard
> Reply-To: [email-masked]
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce

---

From: Martin Rex <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 22:22:27 +0100 (MET)

> >  <draft-mcgrew-tls-aes-ccm-03.txt> as a Proposed Standard

I believe this document should be published as Informational,
not as Proposed Standard, because it is only interesting to
a specific community and not a generally useful set of cipher suites.

Other RFCs describing TLS cipher suites that were published as
informational:

5289 TLS Elliptic Curve Cipher Suites with SHA-256/384 and AES Galois
     Counter Mode (GCM). E. Rescorla. August 2008. (Format: TXT=12195
     bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)

5489 ECDHE_PSK Cipher Suites for Transport Layer Security (TLS). M.
     Badra, I. Hajjeh. March 2009. (Format: TXT=14194 bytes) (Status:
     INFORMATIONAL)

6209 Addition of the ARIA Cipher Suites to Transport Layer Security
     (TLS). W. Kim, J. Lee, J. Park, D. Kwon. April 2011. (Format:
     TXT=19501 bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)

6367 Addition of the Camellia Cipher Suites to Transport Layer
     Security (TLS). S. Kanno, M. Kanda. September 2011. (Format:
     TXT=17613 bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)

(btw. I believe that rfc5932 would have been perfectly sufficient
 as informational, in spite of replacing rfc4132.  And I'm confused
 why both 5932 and 4132 contain the list of ciphersuites TWICE
 (and nothing much else).

-Martin

---

From: Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 13:29:24 +0100

>      TXT=17613 bytes) (Status: INFORMATIONAL)

It seems none of the above documents are listed in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/tls/. Is there any way to get a list
of the TLS-related RFCs?

As far as I understand TLS-related RFCs or drafts are not even
announced in the tls mailing list. Is there a reason for that? I believe
members of this list could provide comments on few of these documents.

regards,
Nikos

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 10:51:38 -0500

> members of this list could provide comments on few of these documents.

Neither of these drafts were WG documents so they wouldn't show up the 
list of RFCs produced by the WG, which is what's on 
https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/tls/.  However because that Camella RFC 
does obsolete a WG product it's on that page as an obsoletes - same as 
for the openpgp RFC 6091.  The related documents shows drafts that 
include the string "tls" in them so before these were RFCs they showed 
up in that list.  Not sure how folks would feel about adding a list of 
related RFCs there.  Not sure what the rule would be for including them 
there - there's lots of RFCs produced that include "TLS" or "DTLS" in 
the title that are the products of other WGs.

If I last call an AD sponsored draft, then I try to remember to cc the 
list, but sometimes I forget and have to forward it to the list.  Note 
that for these particular drafts the WG was copied on request for 
reviews and LCs:

ARIA:
  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg07065.html
  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg07261.html
  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg07325.html

Camellia:
  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg07316.html
  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg07442.html
  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg07674.html

spt

---

From: Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 19:28:00 +0100

On 02/15/2012 04:51 PM, Sean Turner wrote:

>> announced in the tls mailing list. Is there a reason for that? I
>> believe members of this list could provide comments on few of these
>> documents.
> Neither of these drafts were WG documents so they wouldn't show up
> the list of RFCs produced by the WG, which is what's on 
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/tls/.

Ok I understand they were developed outside the WG, but they propose
changes/updates to the protocol the WG is responsible for. If the WG
page isn't the page to list those updates, then it seems there is
no other way to find them in a single place.

> However because that Camella RFC
> does obsolete a WG product it's on that page as an obsoletes - same
> as for the openpgp RFC 6091.  The related documents shows drafts
> that include the string "tls" in them so before these were RFCs they
> showed up in that list.  Not sure how folks would feel about adding a
> list of related RFCs there.

I think they should be listed somewhere, so that an implementor
could look for interesting features proposed for TLS. It doesn't need to
be mixed with the work group documents and it should be clear that
they are third-party proposals.

> Not sure what the rule would be for including them
> there - there's lots of RFCs produced that include "TLS" or "DTLS"
> in the title that are the products of other WGs.

A simple liberal rule could be whether they could be useful to someone
implementing TLS.

regards,
Nikos

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2012 14:31:01 -0500

> A simple liberal rule could be whether they could be useful to someone

I'll see what I figure out.

spt