On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 11:00 PM Sean Turner wrote:
>
>
> > On May 7, 2020, at 19:03, Tommy Pauly
> wrote:
> >
> > To that end, I’d have a minor preference for “ETCH”.
>
> If we could just work an “a" and “sketch” into the name … I am all in.
>
> More seriously, let’s knock this decision out by e
+1 to "ETCH"
Any objections to that or concerns with that?
(Agreed it would be good to finalize this ASAP.)
On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 7:03 PM Tommy Pauly wrote:
> ECHO is more fun to say, but I do see how it can be confusing (sounding
> like some sort of ping) when out of the context of TLS.
>
> T
If you don’t care about FIPS-140, just delete this message, and avoid the
temptation to argue how bad it is.
NIST SP 800-56C (Recommendation for Key-Derivation Methods in Key-Establishment
Schemes) is currently a draft in review. The document is at
https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/sp/8
> -Original Message-
> From: Cfrg On Behalf Of Salz, Rich
> Subject: [Cfrg] NIST crypto group and HKDF (and therefore TLS 1.3)
>
> NIST SP 800-56C (Recommendation for Key-Derivation Methods in Key-
> Establishment Schemes) is currently a draft in review with a deadline of
> May 15.
>[DB] But NIST Draft SP 800-56Cr2 cites RFC 5869, which is HKDF, and says
> HKDF
is a version of 56C Section 5.1. So, I had thought that 56C would allow
HKDF.
What am I missing?
It cites it, but doesn't include it in the 800-56 doc.
___
> -Original Message-
> From: Salz, Rich
>
> >[DB] But NIST Draft SP 800-56Cr2 cites RFC 5869, which is HKDF, and
> > says
> HKDF
> is a version of 56C Section 5.1. So, I had thought that 56C would allow
> HKDF.
> What am I missing?
>
> It cites it, but doesn't include it in
On Fri, May 8, 2020, at 17:08, Salz, Rich wrote:
> It cites it, but doesn't include it in the 800-56 doc.
Maybe I'm confused too, but it sounds like it's included to me. The
definition of the KDF includes:
> The first (randomness-extraction) step uses either HMAC … If
> HMAC-hash is used i
Dear all.
I just now noticed the call for comment for SP-800-56c. Please note
the state-of-the-art paper
on seedless randomness extraction in the recent CRYPTO'19 paper by
Sandro Coretti, Harish Karthikeyan, Stefano Tessaro and myself:
"Seedless Fruit is the Sweetest: Random Number Generation, Rev
I rather prefer ECHO.
-Ekr
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 9:31 AM Erik Nygren wrote:
> +1 to "ETCH"
>
> Any objections to that or concerns with that?
> (Agreed it would be good to finalize this ASAP.)
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 7:03 PM Tommy Pauly 40apple@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
>> ECHO is more
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 03:38:33PM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> I rather prefer ECHO.
Do you have some arguments to dispel the concerns about confusion, other than
your personal preference?
-Ben
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/m
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 3:43 PM Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 03:38:33PM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > I rather prefer ECHO.
>
> Do you have some arguments to dispel the concerns about confusion, other
> than
> your personal preference?
>
There's no confusion. I couldn't belie
11 matches
Mail list logo
