Re: IPSEC WORKING GROUP LAST CALL

"Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com> Fri, 20 February 1998 14:38 UTC

Received: (from majordom@localhost) by portal.ex.tis.com (8.8.2/8.8.2) id JAA18236 for ipsec-outgoing; Fri, 20 Feb 1998 09:38:09 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199802201450.JAA26463@jekyll.piermont.com>
To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@MIT.EDU>
cc: ipsec@tis.com
Subject: Re: IPSEC WORKING GROUP LAST CALL
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 19 Feb 1998 23:42:47 EST." <199802200442.XAA14827@dcl.MIT.EDU>
Reply-To: perry@piermont.com
X-Reposting-Policy: redistribute only with permission
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 1998 09:50:19 -0500
From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com
Precedence: bulk

"Theodore Y. Ts'o" writes:
> The triple DES document wasn't one of the documents that I put into IETF
> last call, as one of the "core group" of documents.  Do people believe
> that should get pushed out to the IESG at the same time?

Yes. In the years since the original IPSec work was done, DES has
become far too weak for words. To my clients with financial
applications, the few hundred K a DES cracker would cost is probably a
reasonable expense for an attacker to undertake. Even if we are not
going to mandate 3DES we should at least make sure that a solid
standard for how to do it is available at the same time as the other specs.

> There is a related question to the other cipher suites for which DOI
> document contains references: ARCFOUR, Blowfish, and RC5.  Since RFC's
> are not allowed to refer to internet-drafts, what do we want to do with
> them in the DOI spec?

"ARCFOUR", a.k.a. RC4 (the name RC4 is trademarked), is described in
detail in Schneier. We could always reference that. Ditto for Blowfish.

Perry