Re: I have a technical idea/change for the ECC draft

["David Crick" <dacrick@xxxxxxxxx>]

>  * I like David Crick's suggestion of a preference that says, "I'm
>  going to be strict about Suite B." This is a legislative solution, and
>  it would work well, it's simple, and elegant. End of story.

are you referring to a "key" or "application" preference (or both?!)

>  * Test, for interop purposes, 3DES with Suite B.

sounds sound

>  If you don't like this, you could do what David Crick suggested,
>  but with reverse polarity. I mean that instead of having an "--enforce-
>  suiteB" option, you have a "--loose-suiteB" option that you have to do
>  to allow anything that's not strict.
>
>  Note that these are not exclusive. You can do both.

So are you saying we have:

o Strict Suite B key flag ("legislative"; allows recipient to specify strongly)

*plus* (potentially out of scope of the [legistlative] spec?)

o an --enforce-suiteB application flag (self-evident)
o a --loose-suiteB application flag (but can it override a key-flag? - or
are you using this instead of a keyflag)

>  Even better would be for implementations to just not offer an
>  alternative.

yes!

If all applications were to by default add AES (one or both) to
the head of any ECC generated keys, *and* prefer AES over
3DES as implicit, *but* still be able to "understand" messages
that are encrypted by non-AES ciphers.