Re: Twofish

[Andrew Bromage <bromage@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

G'day all.

At 07:28 PM 1/12/99 -0500, uri wrote:

>    So, Twofish is a logical successor for Blowfish - and let's treat it
>    like that. If people have Blowfish-encrypted stuff already (which I
>    doubt, but you never know) - they can do a one-time move. Better
>    than to carry unnecessary baggage.

Jon Callas wrote:

> I'm uncomfortable with re-declaring an identifier. It's just not good
> engineering practice to my mind.

I have to agree.

RFC 2440, the current "standard", is published.  If we were looking at
an error, I'd say "fix it".  But we are not The Evil Software Empire(tm),
and can't move the ground out from under people.  This kind of ambiguity
will only cause confusion at best and put people off PGP at worst.

> I think it is much better use another
> identifier. This would only put us up to 10, and that includes four
> identifiers that are presently only reserved.

...and one would be deprecated.

Cheers,
Andrew Bromage