RE: Last Call: Use of the CAST-128 Encryption Algorithm in CMS to Proposed Standard
"Blake Ramsdell" <blake.ramsdell@tumbleweed.com> Fri, 23 June 2000 20:39 UTC
Received: from ns.secondary.com (ns.secondary.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA19044 for <smime-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 16:39:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id NAA02880 for ietf-smime-bks; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:15:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cane.deming.com (mail.deming.com [208.236.41.137]) by ns.secondary.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id NAA02861 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:14:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 208.236.41.137 by cane.deming.com with ESMTP (WorldSecure Server SMTP Relay(WSS) v4.5); Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:14:48 -0700
X-Server-Uuid: 1a012586-24e9-11d1-adae-00a024bc53c5
Received: by mail.deming.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <JKLWY1B8>; Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:14:48 -0700
Message-ID: <01FF24001403D011AD7B00A024BC53C5950011@mail.deming.com>
From: Blake Ramsdell <blake.ramsdell@tumbleweed.com>
To: "'jimsch@nwlink.com'" <jimsch@nwlink.com>, Carlisle Adams <carlisle.adams@entrust.com>
cc: ietf-smime@imc.org
Subject: RE: Last Call: Use of the CAST-128 Encryption Algorithm in CMS to Proposed Standard
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2000 13:14:46 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
X-WSS-ID: 154D1AB216093-01-01
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-ietf-smime@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-smime/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-smime.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-smime-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
So what's the difference between the CAST draft and the IDEA draft, then? The IDEA draft specifies it, doesn't it? Blake -----Original Message----- From: Jim Schaad [mailto:jimsch@nwlink.com] Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 1:10 PM To: Carlisle Adams; Blake Ramsdell Cc: ietf-smime@imc.org Subject: RE: Last Call: Use of the CAST-128 Encryption Algorithm in CMS to Proposed Standard This is still my position. If, for a D-H key, you make the statment that CAST128 is supported as a bulk algorithm, then you must support the CAST128 wrap of CAST128 because that is the only way of doing it. jim > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ietf-smime@mail.imc.org > [mailto:owner-ietf-smime@mail.imc.org]On Behalf Of Carlisle Adams > Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2000 7:19 AM > To: 'Blake Ramsdell' > Cc: 'ietf-smime@imc.org' > Subject: RE: Last Call: Use of the CAST-128 Encryption Algorithm in CMS > to Proposed Standard > > > Hi Blake, > > Good to hear from you again! > > > ---------- > > From: Blake Ramsdell[SMTP:blake.ramsdell@tumbleweed.com] > > Sent: Monday, June 19, 2000 4:14 PM > > To: 'ietf-smime@imc.org' > > Subject: RE: Last Call: Use of the CAST-128 Encryption Algorithm in > > CMS to Proposed Standard > > > > Two comments, don't know if they're major. > > > > 1. Section 3 does not list an SMIMECapability for key wrapping > using IDEA, > > only for symmetric encryption. Don't know if that was intended. > > I suspect that you mean "CAST-128" above, rather than "IDEA"... > > In any case, I originally had both OIDs here (symm. encryption and key > wrapping), but in a note posted on Nov. 18, 1999, Jim Schaad included the > following comment: > > "2. Section 3 Para 1. You state that you must include the above OIDs in > the symmetric algorithms section of capabilities, but only one of the oids > is a symmetric algorithm. At the > current time we are "implying" the key wrap from the symmetric > algorithm as > only same key wrap is supported in CMS. Please change to the correct OID > reference." > > So, I took out the key wrap OID and left only the one for symmetric > encryption. > > > 2. I think that the example in section 3 should clarify that the > > cast5CBCParameters are encoded with the iv omitted. > > I guess it seemed clear to me that if you were only advertising your > capabilities (in this case, symmetric algorithm and key length), > an IV would > be irrelevant and would therefore be omitted. If you wish, however, I can > add a sentence to this effect when the document has been approved > and I get > the 1-day window to send any tiny edits to the RFC editor. Let me know if > you really think this is necessary. > > Thanks for taking the time to look through this draft! > > Carlisle. > >
- Last Call: Use of the CAST-128 Encryption Algorit… The IESG
- RE: Last Call: Use of the CAST-128 Encryption Alg… Blake Ramsdell
- RE: Last Call: Use of the CAST-128 Encryption Alg… Carlisle Adams
- RE: Last Call: Use of the CAST-128 Encryption Alg… Jim Schaad
- RE: Last Call: Use of the CAST-128 Encryption Alg… Blake Ramsdell
- RE: Last Call: Use of the CAST-128 Encryption Alg… Jim Schaad