I agree with Rene’s points.
-- Regards, Uri From: TLS <tls-boun...@ietf.org> on behalf of Rene Struik <rstruik....@gmail.com> Date: Friday, August 13, 2021 at 09:58 Dear colleagues: I think this document should absolutely *not* be adopted, without providing far more technical justification. The quoted Raccoon attack is an easy to mitigate attack (which has nothing to do with finite field groups, just with poor design choices of postprocessing, where one uses variable-size integer representations for a key). There are also good reasons to have key exchanges where one of the parties has a static key, whether ecc-based or ff-based (e.g., sni, opaque), for which secure implementations are known. No detail is provided and that alone should be sufficient reason to not adopt. Rene On 2021-07-29 5:50 p.m., Joseph Salowey wrote: This is a working group call for adoption for Deprecating FFDH(E) Ciphersuites in TLS (draft-bartle-tls-deprecate-ffdhe-00). We had a presentation for this draft at the IETF 110 meeting and since it is a similar topic to the key exchange deprecation draft the chairs want to get a sense if the working group wants to adopt this draft (perhaps the drafts could be merged if both move forward). Please review the draft and post your comments to the list by Friday, August 13, 2021. Thanks, The TLS chairs _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls -- email: rstruik....@gmail.com | Skype: rstruik cell: +1 (647) 867-5658 | US: +1 (415) 287-3867
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
