Re: Comments on draft-ietf-smime-rcek-00.txt

Russ Housley <housley@spyrus.com> Thu, 14 September 2000 19:08 UTC

Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000914144037.00bb1bf0@mail.spyrus.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2000 14:46:56 -0400
To: Robert Zuccherato <robert.zuccherato@entrust.com>
From: Russ Housley <housley@spyrus.com>
Subject: Re: Comments on draft-ietf-smime-rcek-00.txt
Cc: ietf-smime@imc.org
In-Reply-To: <3120721CA75DD411B8340090273D20B1283B04@sottmxs06.entrust.c om>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Sender: owner-ietf-smime@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk

Robert:

There are important environments where the KEK and CEK algorithms are 
different.  Usually, these environment mandate a stronger algorithm for the 
KEK.  This seems like a very reasonable policy, and I think that we should 
not prohibit it.

Russ

At 11:05 AM 09/14/2000 -0400, Robert Zuccherato wrote:
>Why not just mandate that the CEK and KEK algorithms must be the 
>same?  This wouldn't seem to be too much of an imposition.  This removes 
>the need for a KDF.  If you really want to allow different algorithms, the 
>KDF included seems kind of ad-hoc.  I would be more comfortable if a more 
>standard KDF was used.  Perhaps the KDF from IEEE P1363 would be appropriate.

Comments on draft-ietf-smime-rcek-00.txt Robert Zuccherato
Re: Comments on draft-ietf-smime-rcek-00.txt Russ Housley
Re: Comments on draft-ietf-smime-rcek-00.txt Stephen Farrell