RE: WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-ipsec-ike-modp-groups-04.txt

"Hilarie Orman, Purple Streak Development" <hilarie@xmission.com> Fri, 24 May 2002 23:00 UTC

Received: from lists.tislabs.com (portal.gw.tislabs.com [192.94.214.101]) by above.proper.com (8.11.6/8.11.3) with ESMTP id g4ON0hL28585; Fri, 24 May 2002 16:00:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lists.tislabs.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) id SAA29001 Fri, 24 May 2002 18:17:21 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Hilarie Orman, Purple Streak Development" <hilarie@xmission.com>
To: ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
In-reply-to: Yourmessage <15597.22768.322645.225267@ryijy.hel.fi.ssh.com>
Subject: RE: WG LAST CALL: draft-ietf-ipsec-ike-modp-groups-04.txt
Message-Id: <E17BNZT-0004Kb-00@xmission.xmission.com>
Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 16:30:03 -0600
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.4 required=8.0 tests=IN_REP_TO version=2.20
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Precedence: bulk

I can't see any reason to use groups for which the discrete log
problem is harder than 128 bits.  Even that is a stretch and you'd
have to go to some trouble to justify it.  This blind matching of
keysizes is ridiculous.  Key length should not be equated with
security requirement.

Hilarie