Subject: [TLS] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe-08.txt> (Negotiated Finite Field Diffie-Hellman Ephemeral Parameters for TLS) to Proposed Standard

From: The IESG <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 2015 19:07:09 -0700

The IESG has received a request from the Transport Layer Security WG
(tls) to consider the following document:
- 'Negotiated Finite Field Diffie-Hellman Ephemeral Parameters for TLS'
  <draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe-08.txt> as 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 2015-04-17. 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

   Traditional finite-field-based Diffie-Hellman (DH) key exchange
   during the TLS handshake suffers from a number of security,
   interoperability, and efficiency shortcomings.  These shortcomings
   arise from lack of clarity about which DH group parameters TLS
   servers should offer and clients should accept.  This document offers
   a solution to these shortcomings for compatible peers by using a
   section of the TLS "EC Named Curve Registry" to establish common
   finite-field DH parameters with known structure and a mechanism for
   peers to negotiate support for these groups.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe/ballot/

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

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2015 16:01:24 -0400 (EDT)

No interesting comments here, just a note that section 9.1 has:

      Pretend that a non-compatible client is compatible (e.g. by .
      This could cause the server to select a particular named group in

which seems to be missing something...

-Ben

---

From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2015 18:32:29 -0400

> which seems to be missing something...

Thanks for catching that, Ben.  That should be:

  (e.g. by adding the Supported Groups extension, or by adding FFDHE
  groups to the extension)

I'm accumulating these changes (including the note about relaxing 4492's
MUST NOT) in git [0]; i don't know whether i should push these edits to the
RFC editor now, or do them in batch after Last Call.

    --dkg

[0] visible at https://github.com/dkg/tls-negotiated-ff-dhe or via
    git://lair.fifthhorseman.net/~dkg/tls-negotiated-ff-dhe

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2015 23:34:42 +0100

> RFC editor now, or do them in batch after Last Call.

The latter please. If we hit some major change or debate we can
revisit that but so long as they're small changes re-issuing at
the end of LC is fine.

Thanks,
S.

> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
> 
>