IMHO it's not a good idea to re-purpose existing cipher-suites and alter their observed behavior. Likewise for the name overloading.
Anon != Ephemeral, despite some similarities. My apologies if I'm missing the point or the frame of a larger issue. Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone on the Verizon Wireless 4G LTE network. Original Message From: Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos Sent: Wednesday, January 27, 2016 03:13 To: Martin Thomson; tls@ietf.org Subject: Re: [TLS] ECDH_anon On Wed, 2016-01-27 at 14:51 +1100, Martin Thomson wrote: > 4472bis has a TBD regarding a missing "E" in the name of ECDHE_anon > cipher suites. > > I raised an issue: https://github.com/tlswg/rfc4492bis/issues/17 My understanding of DH_anon and ECDH_anon is that they were made to be used with static keys so even though anonymous one could verify that he connected to the same server by checking the server's keys. I don't believe anyone actually implemented that mode (I'm mostly speculating) and most of the anon usage is with ephemeral keys, thus this proposal makes sense. However if the name is changed to underline the ephemeral part, it would be nice to document the change of the intended purpose of these ciphersuites. regards, Nikos _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
