Re: Core draft last call update.

[daw%mozart.cs.berkeley.edu@localhost (David Wagner)]

Markus Friedl  wrote:
>my point is that for CTR there is no common format (e.g.
>how is the counter encoded, etc) whereas a spec for OFB mode
>is simpler.

That's easily fixed, and I'd gladly volunteer to help.  Is this
really the only barrier to getting a fix in place?

>On Mon, Mar 11, 2002 at 09:22:05AM +0000, David Wagner wrote:
>> P.S. I assumed that if there is a known security weakness, it would be
>> disclosed in the RFC, so I'm surprised that you consider it a bad thing to
>> have a paragraph describing the weakness.
>
>i think it's bad to have such a paragraph without offering
>alternative cipher modes.

I admit I don't understand.  I come from a philosophy that says
you disclose what you know about the security properties of the
protocol, both positive and negative: truth in advertising.  If
the decision is that fixing this weakness is too costly at present,
that's one thing; avoiding all mention of it is another.  What's
gained by hiding the facts from implementors and readers of the RFC?
Can you help me understand the rationale behind such a stance?