[IPsec] revisiting 3DES and -graveyard

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Wed, 15 April 2020 02:13 UTC

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2020 19:13:21 -0700
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: ipsec@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20200415021321.GI88064@mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipsec/IyE2dP17oKPFXeBgSs6hjfjXiIE>
Subject: [IPsec] revisiting 3DES and -graveyard
Precedence: list

Hi all,

I see in
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/104/materials/minutes-104-ipsecme-00
that we didn't want to get rid of 3DES at that time.  Do we have a sense
for how quickly that will change, the scope of existing deployments, etc.?
In particular, would a general-purpose OS's implementation cause problems
for its consumers if the next release dropped support?  (Noting that
consumers could stay on an old OS release to match the old algorithms, at
least for a while.)

Thanks,

Ben

[IPsec] revisiting 3DES and -graveyard Benjamin Kaduk
Re: [IPsec] revisiting 3DES and -graveyard Paul Wouters
[IPsec] revisiting 3DES and -graveyard Tero Kivinen
Re: [IPsec] revisiting 3DES and -graveyard Michael Richardson
Re: [IPsec] revisiting 3DES and -graveyard Robert Moskowitz
Re: [IPsec] revisiting 3DES and -graveyard Benjamin Kaduk
Re: [IPsec] revisiting 3DES and -graveyard Michael Richardson
Re: [IPsec] revisiting 3DES and -graveyard Dan Brown
Re: [IPsec] revisiting 3DES and -graveyard Paul Wouters