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

[Jon Callas <jon@xxxxxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


On Apr 15, 2008, at 3:12 AM, David Crick wrote:
>> Note that 4880 *explicitly* says that you take the intersection of
>> Alice's and Bob's preferences and resolve them any way you see fit.  
>> It
>> is acceptable for an implementation to use 3DES only when nothing  
>> else
>> exists. It's acceptable for an implementation, thus, in Suite B, to
>> always be strict. (To do Suite B, you have to have AES as an option.)
>
> yes, although there *is* a section in 4880 that says about
> the preference listing being ordered.  The two things together
> *aren't* incompatible; rather they say, together, that here's
> some information you *could* use, but really it's up to you.

Exactly. The two things are there and it's by intent. You say what  
your preferences are in order, and I take them under advisement.


>
>
>
>> That's the way I'd do it. I'd do it in the code, not in the standard.
>>
>> However, I realize that not everyone has my matters of taste, and so
>> therefore, I support the legislative solution.
>
> I think the legislative solution should give clear enough
> guidelines to the implementers about what they should
> be doing!

I disagree only in that I'd change "should" to "must." :-) Should is  
opinion, must is fact. There's always someone who has to deviate from  
the best path for reasons we cannot fathom.

	Jon




-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Universal 2.6.3
Charset: US-ASCII

wj8DBQFIBReUsTedWZOD3gYRAjQOAJ4oqCm9dBGR1OX9NBoKJN+mtVc+xACgiluE
4Ixix7J9xvggxpejZix7Ar0=
=BDTI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----