[Swan-dev] include -NONE- when logging AEAD proposals?

[Paul Wouters]

On Tue, 22 Sep 2020, Andrew Cagney wrote:

> On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 at 21:36, Paul Wouters <paul at nohats.ca> wrote:
>       On Tue, 22 Sep 2020, Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
>       > Now that the parser can accept <aead>-NONE- <prf>-<dh>, should "NONE" be included when logging those proposals?  For
>       instance:
>       >
>       > OLD:
>       > algparse -v2 'ike=aes_gcm-sha1-dh21'
>       > AES_GCM_16-HMAC_SHA1-DH21
>       > algparse -v2 'ike=aes_gcm_16-none-hmac_sha1-dh21'
>       > AES_GCM_16-HMAC_SHA1-DH21
>       >
>       > NEW:
>       > algparse -v2 'ike=aes_gcm-sha1-dh21'
>       > AES_GCM_16-NONE-HMAC_SHA1-DH21
>       > algparse -v2 'ike=aes_gcm_16-none-hmac_sha1-dh21'
>       > AES_GCM_16-NONE-HMAC_SHA1-DH21
>       >
>       > the main reason is to avoid any confusion over how integrity is being computed.
>
>       I think that would be good, yes.
>
>       > As a follow-up, what about non-AEAD algorithms; which get really unwieldy.
>
>       I'm not sure what you mean?
> 
> 
> algparse -v2 'ike=aes-sha2-dh31'
> AES_CBC-HMAC_SHA2_256-DH31
> 
> vs the canonical:
> 
> algparse -v2 'ike=aes-sha2-dh31'
> AES_CBC-HMAC_SHA2_256_128-HMAC_SHA2_256-DH31

Oh I see. do we repeat the PRF after INTEG because these are always the
same in the non-AEAD case. I think I'm fine not doing it, since we don't
support prf != integ unless AEAD. It would be more consistent to do it.
I have no strong opinion on what's better.

Paul