Ready for Camellia? (was: More on the closing of the OpenPGP WG)

[David Shaw <dshaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 01:29:49PM -0400, Derek Atkins wrote:
> 
> David Shaw <dshaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> [snip]
> > I think that is just fine, and thanks for working this out.
> >
> > I have a minor process question though: I've done a couple of Camellia
> > drafts as "draft-ietf-openpgp-camellia".  Do I need to convert that to
> > "draft-shaw-openpgp-camellia" (i.e. an individual submission) and
> > re-submit?
> 
> No, it can stay as 'draft-ietf-openpgp-'.  No need to rename and
> resubmit as an individual.

Great, thanks.

I think we're ready for the final push on Camellia.  All of the
suggested changes have been incorporated, and if folks could give it a
final read, I'd appreciate it:
  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-openpgp-camellia-01.txt

I would particulary appreciate comments on the choice of 128 and
256-bit keys (that is, lacking 192).  I tend to agree with Jon that
192 is neither here nor there, but I'm also a major fan of
consistency.  If we're going to include 192 for the ECC work, then
it's odd to leave it out here.

David