Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-krb-wg-des-die-die-die-01.txt
"Henry B. Hotz" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.krb-wg |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Feb 9, 2012, at 7:26 AM, Tom Yu wrote: >> There should be a reference to RFC 4757 when ARCFOUR-HMAC is mentioned, >> and the reference should use the name RC4-HMAC instead of ARCFOUR-HMAC >> since that is what RFC 4757 calls it. > > Implementations call it ARCFOUR-HMAC in various places for trademark > reasons, as I recall. (Though skimming RFC 4757 reminds me that we > might also want to deprecate rc4-hmac-exp (24) -- "export strength" > RC4 -- as weak.) I'd be willing to skip that to get the document out > sooner. Do people have strong opinions about naming it RC4 versus > ARCFOUR? No strong opinion, but if forced to vote, I would vote for the RFC 4757 name. Get rid of "export strength" crypto as long as it doesn't slow passage of this document. ------------------------------------------------------ The opinions expressed in this message are mine, not those of Caltech, JPL, NASA, or the US Government. [email protected], or [email protected] _______________________________________________ ietf-krb-wg mailing list [email protected] https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg