Re: [tcpinc] tcpcrypt MTI key exchange (speak now or forever hold your peace...)

[iang <[e-mail]>]

On 24/10/2017 20:26, David Mazieres wrote:

> iang <[e-mail]> writes:
>
>> In general +1.
>>
>> The only quibble I would have is that 2. Curve448 should be a MAY.
>> Firstly, a caveated SHOULD becomes a MAY, at some level of
>> approximation.  Secondly, if we manage to convince an enemy to crunch
>> Curve25519 then we have won a great victory, and we can upgrade at our
>> leisure with newer information.
>>
>> But it is only a quibble - I wouldn't hold up any vote on this just
>> because of an idle bar prediction on consequences.
> Point taken.  However, the rationale behind the SHOULD is that:
>
> A) The ADs were slightly uncomfortable with only one MTI, though not
>     adamantly opposed to it, and
>
> B) People really should implement Curve448, so why not write the
>     document in such a way as to encourage it?
>
> So the SHOULD is a nice compromise between one MTI and two MTIs, where
> sure we only have one MTI, but we've encouraged people who want a second
> key exchange algorithm to converge on the same one.  This way down the
> line, when Curve448 is widely supported in software, people will be more
> likely to include it.
>
> Make sense?


Yes - makes sense - after this earlier thread I went back and read the 
earlier comments.  It's what it takes.  Let's do it.

iang