RE: [Cfrg] draft-housley-ccm-mode-00.txt

"David A. Mcgrew" <> Fri, 16 August 2002 14:07 UTC

Received: from ( [] (may be forged)) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA16170 for <>; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:07:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id KAA03238 for; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:09:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA03200; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:08:17 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (odin []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA03177 for <>; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:08:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA16144 for <>; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:06:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id g7GE7ehI013743; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 07:07:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MCGREWW2K ( []) by (Mirapoint) with SMTP id ACG16679; Fri, 16 Aug 2002 06:59:20 -0700 (PDT)
From: "David A. Mcgrew" <>
To: "Peter Gutmann" <>, <>, <>
Subject: RE: [Cfrg] draft-housley-ccm-mode-00.txt
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 07:07:37 -0700
Message-ID: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
In-Reply-To: <>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700
Importance: Normal
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: Crypto Forum Research Group <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Peter, Russ,

Russ wrote:
> >It is my intention to publish draft-housley-ccm-mode-00.txt as an
> >Informational RFC.  This looks like the appropriate group to review the
> >document.


Peter wrote:
> If it's truly unencumbered, I'd like to see this as standards-track.  I've
> been working on an single-pass encrypt+MAC process draft for CMS for use
> in areas like EDI, but a combined mode of operation would be much nicer.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by standards track.  One of the goals of
CFRG is to provide review of and discussion about informational RFCs on
crypto mechanisms.  Our hope is that these RFCs will prove useful to IETF
WGs, and may be adopted into standards-track work in the IETF.  Of course,
as an IRTF group we don't have a standards-track ourselves.

Perhaps you meant that you'd like to see the CCM ID become a CFRG ID, which
sounds fine to me.


Cfrg mailing list