Subject: Re: Do we want to last call crypto now or after meeting

From: Jeffrey Altman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 19:29:45 EST

> W
> I hope you mean clarifications not extensions.
> 

That's what I meant.

 Jeffrey Altman * Sr.Software Designer     Kermit 95 2.0 GUI available now!!!
 The Kermit Project @ Columbia University  SSH, Secure Telnet, Secure FTP, HTTP
 http://www.kermit-project.org/            Secured with MIT Kerberos, SRP, and 
 [email-masked]               OpenSSL.

---

From: Derek Atkins <[email-masked]>
Date: 01 Nov 2002 19:38:50 -0500

I'd like to see crypto last-called as soon as possible.  The reason is
that the sooner that 3DES/AES becomes a "standard" the sooner I can
boink people to stop using 1DES as their one and only required
cryptosystem.  It's hard to tell a client "you should support 3des,
even though it's not supported by all KDCs and there is no standard"..
They don't like that concept.

-derek

-- 
       Derek Atkins
       Computer and Internet Security Consultant
       [email-masked]             www.ihtfp.com

---

From: Ken Raeburn <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 20:18:44 -0500

> They don't like that concept.

AES isn't in the crypto draft, and it's the only required encryption
mechanism in Cliff's current draft.  I've submitted a new draft (copy
at http://www.mit.edu/~raeburn/draft-raeburn-krb-rijndael-krb-02.txt)
but the test values still need to be verified.

We had decided at the interim WG meeting not to integrate AES into
Crypto, but to send both forward along with Clarifications.  If people
don't like that, it probably wouldn't take too long to integrate them.
I think the biggest advantage to having AES separate is the ability to
continue revising it while Crypto and Clarifications get approved, but
if we're submitting them at the same time, it doesn't make that much
difference.

Ken

---

From: Michael Thomas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 18:30:23 -0800 (PST)

> if we're submitting them at the same time, it doesn't make that much

   IMHO, AES support should be a top priority. It's
   been over a year now and it's pretty sad that both
   Kerberos and IPsec WG seemed to be wrapped around
   the axle.

	Mike

---

From: "Nicolas Williams [RU-CENTRAL]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 09:29:55 -0800

<[email-masked]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To: <[email-masked]>; from [email-masked] on Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at
08:18:44PM -0500
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-103.4 required=6.0
	tests=IN_REP_TO,USER_IN_WHITELIST
	version=2.31
Sender: [email-masked]
Precedence: bulk

> but the test values still need to be verified.

This means that either clarifications and AES (and crypto!) must
progress together or clarifications must be updated to not mandate AES.
Either way clarifications makes several references to the crypto draft,
so both must progress together.

Nico
--