Re: des-die-die-die and RC4
Jeffrey Altman <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.krb-wg |
|---|---|
| Organization | Secure Endpoints Inc. |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 2/17/2012 12:33 PM, Henry B. Hotz wrote: > If it weren't for the need (for a little longer) to support a compile-time option for 1-DES compatibility with AFS, I'd be fine with an even stronger MUST NOT implement, provide, or on any other way allow kind of provision. If AFS doesn't get workable rxgk support soon that alone may kill it. Whether SHOULD NOT or MUST NOT is used should not be determined by the needs of any one application that is currently deployed or might be deployed in the future. This specification only impacts software that is developed and deployed after the specification is published. Organizations are always going to have to provide back level compatibility for existing deployments. Jeffrey Altman _______________________________________________ ietf-krb-wg mailing list [email protected] https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 487 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPPqzkAAoJENxm1CNJffh4fAIH/jh8HfWTwM7xMtJOsnWlKhHp pQbxzPtUQ2xgn/0mLS1YMvQ5MczwGYku90OkVEbnQv8Oz3SJVE1w6lCZNu02XPIt 7dk63CLal9phaZItEYEVPvx2Zv93jhWDJWoqwxlM1K4jUdUYwIl3I9mlQyyAtcNs 7S0HndHuBur9+Sju3/qj3LTOUsEqPJndbPNQDSw+dqXdsd4Sk2msVxrzpgUfsed+ I9M9NtP3SbaEdh8iOwm+xbCBQmPQONkoHRDmfuiOowiKVU8scqa0xRZqeLA+bumC JX3/F5mpSFHVw61H3jLkJ+LY2jPqoNPrRQFVh9F2/HEUiw1qJDxz8L3ozkx3yac= =Piak -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----