Re: Resolution of last call comments for draft-harris-ssh-arcfour-fixes-02.txt
Ben Harris <bjh21@bjh21.me.uk> Wed, 29 June 2005 15:00 UTC
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dne3M-0006Pf-08; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 11:00:40 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Dne3K-0006PR-Si for ietf@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 11:00:38 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA29198 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 11:00:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ppsw-1.csi.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.131]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DneSs-0001Ro-Bx for ietf@ietf.org; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 11:27:05 -0400
X-Cam-SpamDetails: Not scanned
X-Cam-AntiVirus: No virus found
X-Cam-ScannerInfo: http://www.cam.ac.uk/cs/email/scanner/
Received: from draco.cus.cam.ac.uk ([131.111.8.18]:59220) by ppsw-1.csi.cam.ac.uk (ppsw.cam.ac.uk [131.111.8.131]:25) with esmtp id 1Dne3C-0008Qf-4w (Exim 4.51) for ietf@ietf.org (return-path <bjh21@cus.cam.ac.uk>); Wed, 29 Jun 2005 16:00:30 +0100
Received: from bjh21 (helo=localhost) by draco.cus.cam.ac.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.51) id 1Dne3C-0000dz-3T; Wed, 29 Jun 2005 16:00:30 +0100
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 16:00:30 +0100
From: Ben Harris <bjh21@bjh21.me.uk>
To: Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <tslmzp9b4uk.fsf@cz.mit.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOC.4.61.0506291552440.22764@draco.cus.cam.ac.uk>
References: <tslmzp9b4uk.fsf@cz.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.9 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 798b2e660f1819ae38035ac1d8d5e3ab
Cc: ietf-ssh@netbsd.org, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Resolution of last call comments for draft-harris-ssh-arcfour-fixes-02.txt
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ietf-bounces@ietf.org
On Wed, 29 Jun 2005, Sam Hartman wrote: > Please add an applicability statement discussing the performance > advantages of RC4 against the known security weaknesses. You may end > up reusing text from your security considerations text. Your > applicability statement needs to suggest to the reader that they > consider the ssh newmodes draft as an alternative to your rc4 ciphers. > This alternative should be chosen in environments where the advantages > of RC4 do not make it attractive. OK. > In addition, I'm still waiting to hear back from you on the questions > raised in the security directorate review. While these points are > minor, they should be addressed. Um, I don't think I've seen these questions, and a quick grep through my mailbox doesn't turn up the word "directorate" anywhere. Should I have been watching somewhere I wasn't? -- Ben Harris _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf