Re: [Secdispatch] GNU Name System

[Russ Housley <[e-mail]>]

Jon:

> * There are a number of eccentric things in the protocol now. I don't mean that as a pejorative -- there are lots of eccentric things I like, SDSI, for example. I also like CFB mode as well as Twofish. Why, though, are they here? Are the design decisions leading to these? There's not a lot in the draft about these decisions. In general, it's better to stick to the well-trodden paths, to pick algorithms, modes, etc. that are in common use. In specific there are often reasons to do something on its own; I can see that a naming system might have reasons for going its own way. We just need a discussion of them. New code, new algorithms mean new bugs. If you can write about these decisions, "Most people do X, we are doing Y, because Z" that helps understand why the decisions are there. Some can be guessed -- CFB means no CBC padding, and no keying issues of a stream cipher like CTR mode. Tell us, though. I also really want to see what's going on and why with the record data encryption ini
>  4.3. 

These days, I ask why an AEAD is not being used.

Russ