Skip to main content

ECDHE_PSK with AES-GCM and AES-CCM Cipher Suites for TLS 1.2 and DTLS 1.2
RFC 8442

Yes

(Alexey Melnikov)
(Kathleen Moriarty)

No Objection

Alvaro Retana
(Alia Atlas)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Benoît Claise)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Mirja Kühlewind)
(Suresh Krishnan)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

Alvaro Retana No Objection

(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -04)

                            

(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -03)

                            

(Adam Roach; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2017-05-23 for -04)
I agree with EKR's discuss -- specifying semantics for these ciphersuites with TLS 1.0 and 1.1 is a material change, and the proposed mechanism (in which servers are encouraged to infer 1.2 support even in the absence of explicit indication) is a bit baffling.

Given the scope this document covers, I recommend adding "1.2" to the title of the document. (e.g.: "ECDHE_PSK with AES-GCM and AES-CCM Cipher Suites for Transport Layer Security Version 1.2 (TLS 1.2)")

(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -04)

                            

(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -04)

                            

(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2017-05-23 for -04)
I support Ekr's DISCUSS position.

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -04)

                            

(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -04)

                            

(Eric Rescorla; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2017-05-22)
The citations to TLS 1.3 still seem pretty muddled. I think you
should just stop referencing and discussing 1.3.

S 2.
I'm not sure that the discussion of the PRF is helpful here in
mandating the non-use of these cipher suites with TLS 1.1 and
below.

(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -04)

                            

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2017-05-24 for -04)
Ciphersuite drafts for TLS are usually above my pay grade, but I understand most of EKR's Discuss, and agree with Adam's suggestion to change the document title to "ECDHE_PSK with AES-GCM and AES-CCM Cipher Suites for Transport Layer Security Version 1.2 (TLS 1.2)" at an absolute minimum.

(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -04)