Re: des-cbc cipher

[nisse%lysator.liu.se@localhost (Niels Möller)]

RJ Atkinson <rja%inet.org@localhost> writes:

> At 11:25 29/11/01, Markus Friedl wrote:
> >not adding "des-cbc" does not change them to "non-compliant", since
> >they have not been "compliant" before.  
> 
> Not so.  The spec didn't strictly prohibit the use of "des-cbc" 
> (as different from "des-cbc@domain" all along.  That's the part 
> that makes the deployed implementations non-compliant.

People seem to disagree on this point. As far back as I can remember,
all wg drafts have clearly given a list of Official Algorithm Names
(not including des-cbc), and clearly stated that for any algorithm not
on that list, one MUST use a name of the form <algorithm>@<domain>.

Could you please quote the spec that said differently?

Finally, I agree with Bill that the timing of your proposal is highly
sub-optimal.

Regards,
/Niels