Type of Project: Amendment to IEEE Standard 802.1AR-2009 † Status: PAR for an Amendment to an existing IEEE Standard 802.1AR-2009 † 1.1 Project Number: P802.1ARce 1.2 Type of Document: Standard 1.3 Life Cycle: Full Use † 2.1 Title: IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area Networks ñ Secure Device Identity Amendment 1: SHA-384 and P-384 Elliptic Curve † 5.2 Scope: This standard specifies the optional use of SHA-384 and the P-384 elliptic curve for use in ECDSA, and SHA-384 for hashing by the DevID module. † 5.3 Is the completion of this standard dependent upon the completion of another standard: No † 5.4 Purpose: This standard will specify the optional use of SHA-384 and the P-384 elliptic curve for use in ECDSA, and SHA-384 for hashing by the DevID module and will update the 802.1AR-2009 references to support the specification. † 5.5 Need for the Project: There is significant broad interest in the use of SHA-384 and P-384 elliptic curve, for example to align with the Suite B Certificate Profile (IETF RFC 5759) and with expected updates to the TPM 2.0 specification in the Trusted Computing Group. To promote interoperability and ensure cryptographic quality, IEEE Standard 802.1AR requires that the cryptography used while claiming conformance is limited to that which is specified in the standard. This project will add the support for SHA-384 hash and P-384 elliptic curve as options.† † 5.6 Stakeholders for the Standard: Developers and users of networking equipment. † Intellectual Property 6.1.a. Is the Sponsor aware of any copyright permissions needed for this project?: No 6.1.b. Is the Sponsor aware of possible registration activity related to this project?: No 7.1 Are there other standards or projects with a similar scope?: No Five Criteria for 802.1ARce ñ†Secure Device Identity Amendment 1: SHA-384 and P-384 Elliptic Curve 1. Broad Market Potential a. Broad sets of applicability This amendment is applicable to all networks that are currently using or planning to use IEEE 802.1AR, Secure Device Identity. The addition of these options that provide additional cryptographic strength will broaden the applicability of IEEE 802.1AR to appeal to those customers desiring the use of the stronger security (i.e., 192 bits). b. Multiple vendors and numerous users A number of major equipment providers have indicated support for this amendment. c. Balanced costs (LAN versus attached stations) There is no imbalance of cost created by this amendment. 2. Compatibility This will fit within the framework in IEEE 802.1AR-2009. There is no change to the conformance clause. 3. Distinct Identity a. Substantially different from other IEEE 802 standards IEEE 802.1AR is already a recognized and established standard, applicable to security not covered by other 802 standards and currently lacking support for the SHA-384 hash and P-384 elliptic curve. b. One unique solution per problem (not two solutions to a problem) This project enhances IEEE 802.1AR to meet emerging and additional needs; it does not duplicate existing capabilities. c. Easy for the document reader to select the relevant specification IEEE Std 802.1AR is already an established reference for Secure Device Identity. 4. Technical Feasibility a. Demonstrated system feasibility Characteristics of P-384 and SHA-384 are already well known. Both have been referenced in RFC 5759 and are also anticipated to be included in the updated TPM 2.0 specification from the Trusted Computing Group. b. Proven technology, reasonable testing Technology for testing cryptographic modes of operations is well advised. c. Confidence in reliability SHA-384 and P-384 elliptic curve has been adopted by NIST. Support for SHA-384 and P-384 elliptic curve is expected to pose no new reliability challenges. d. Coexistence of 802 wireless standards specifying devices for unlicensed operation Not applicable. 5. Economic Feasibility a. Known cost factors, reliable data The economic factors for adoption of this technology outweigh the estimated costs of implementing the solution. b. Reasonable cost for performance Experience with cryptography providing 192 bits of strength has met customer needs for cost of perceived value. c. Consideration of installation costs No differences expected. No changes in the installation practice are anticipated.