Re: Mandatory Algorithm Changes?

[Ben Laurie <[e-mail]>]

Jon Callas wrote:
> 
> Mandatory-to-implement does not mean mandatory-to-use.
> 
> If we change 3DES to AES, things don't instantly stop working. If we do 
> that, 3DES would be a SHOULD, of course, and there will be a note that 
> says that if you don't implement 3DES there could be interoperability 
> issues.
> 
> I don't think that any reasonable implementor is going to run right out 
> and code stupidly. It will obviously take a couple of years before 
> someone can safely assume, for example, that the 
> algorithm-of-last-resort would be AES.
> 
> However, if we ever want to roll 3DES over to AES, we have to start 
> sometime. The couple of years of bake-in doesn't start until a change is 
> made. Why not now?
> 
> I'm willing to concede the point on SHA-256, I wouldn't have brought it 
> up at all if NIST hadn't said a couple days ago they're phasing out 
> SHA-1 and rolling to SHA-256.

Oops. What I said was that this seems like a candidate for having flags 
in the PGP certificates that say what is supported by the receiving 
application(s).

Cheers,

Ben.

-- 
http://www.apache-ssl.org/ben.html       http://www.thebunker.net/

"There is no limit to what a man can do or how far he can go if he
doesn't mind who gets the credit." - Robert Woodruff