Subject: Re: des-cbc cipher

From: Markus Friedl <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 14:26:57 +0100

On Fri, Nov 30, 2001 at 11:01:20AM -0500, RJ Atkinson wrote:
>         Those implementations PRE-DATE the first draft spec.  So 
> they can't be blamed now for following a draft that DIDN'T EXIST
> at the time it was coded up.  The history is relevant here -- ugly
> to be sure, but highly relevant.

implementations pre-dating the first draft can never be compliant,
since they won't be using the correct session id, for example.

-m

---

From: Darren Moffat <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 11:43:58 -0800 (PST)

>What does this mean for the specs:
>
> - No change is necessary to the core protocol drafts.

Good.

> - The working group needs to allocate "des-cbc" as historic
>   (deprecated) and/or Not Recommended

My preference would be for Historic and Not Recommended.

> - an additional working group document (which I believe Ran has
>volunteered to write) would designate des-cbc as historic and
>deprecated, and would be intended for publication as a Historic RFC.

I'm happy with that as an outcome since it makes the status of desc-cbc
clear and it doesn't require further changes to the core drafts.

Ran if you wish I could help out with the editiing of the new draft since
I have everything setup (including references) for generating the core
drafts.

--
Darren J Moffat