Re: draft-harris-ssh-arcfour-fixes-02: informational or proposed?

Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@mmit.edu.cnri.reston.va.us> writes:

> Hi, folks.  The IESG has received a last call comment recommending
> that the new rc4 cipher for ssh be published as informational rather
> than as a proposed standard because of weaknesses in rc4.  It would be
> inappropriate to make a decision based on one comment so I am
> soliciting comments on this point.
>
> The argument in favor of publishing this document at proposed is that
> the existing arcfour cipher is part of a standard and that many other
> IETF protocols use rc4 in standards track documents.

A similar argument could be made for MD5.  I don't think it is a
strong argument.

If there is a known public weakness today, publishing it as a standard
seem like a poor idea to me.

FWIW, my general comment is that the IETF should not promote RC4.
Technically better alternatives exists; and the cryptographic/IPR
history of RC4 doesn't improve the case for it.  I have similar
thoughts on the use of RC4 in SASL DIGEST-MD5.

Cheers,
Simon

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf