> On Oct 4, 2017, at 9:48 AM, Yoav Nir <ynir.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> On 4 Oct 2017, at 16:29, Russ Housley <hous...@vigilsec.com >> <mailto:hous...@vigilsec.com>> wrote: >> >> >>> On Oct 4, 2017, at 3:30 AM, Yoav Nir <ynir.i...@gmail.com >>> <mailto:ynir.i...@gmail.com>> wrote: >>> >>> (IoT) - This requirement is for interoperability with IoT. Only >>> 128-bit keys are at the given level. >> If the IoT environment is willing to accept lower integrity protection in >> order to save a few bits on the wire/ether, I do not see why the >> specification also forces them from using a larger key size. > > Maybe to save a few cycles in addition to the few bits? They claimed that > the one AEAD cipher they needed was AES_CCM_8 with a 128-bit key, because > that was all that their hardware supports. > > What we are saying is that if you want your (in that case IPsec, but it’s no > different for TLS) to work with IoT devices, you need that AEAD cipher.
Right, but is there any reason to restrict CCM_8 to 128-bit keys in the IANA registry entry? I can't see one. Russ
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
