Re: [OPSEC] minutes part 2

Hi Ran,

I am sorry if you are finding issues with my language.

>> I agree AES took about 9 years to be mandated in
>> say the IPsec RFC (so a bit lesser than 10 years).
>
> You must have misread my note.  AES-CBC for IPsec shipped
> in about 12 months, not 9 years.  AES-CBC for ESP shipped
> well before the RFC was published, as I recall.
>
> Oh, and NIST selecting AES took about 4 years (URL below
> says 1997 to 2000/2001).
>
> NIST's web page also says they expect to announce a new
> hash function in 2012 (URL below).  Four years is somewhat
> less than half of "10 years" from now.
This is great. Yes announcing an algorithm and actually seeing it in
the field is different. I have given you a quote from folks in NIST
itself (which does not talk about announcement of the chosen algorithm
but about actually finding the algorithms in the field). May be there
was some gap in the language again.

I have not imagined/ concoted the time lines myself. It however is
again based on a particular opinion and may not necessarily be
correct.

Regarding the cryptographic algorithms, I think we need to look at the
issue at a bigger level than just this list. Thanks for raising the
issues.

Thanks again,
Vishwas

>
>
> NIST Hash Timeline (includes AES timeline also):
>        <http://csrc.nist.gov/groups/ST/hash/timeline.html>
>
_______________________________________________
OPSEC mailing list
OPSEC@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec