Re: Async rekey?

Mouse <[email protected]> writes:

> I don't recall why this was done (nor indeed whether it was even
> discussed).  It makes sense for initial kex, but it doesn't strike me
> as conceptually necessary for rekeying.

I don't recall much discussion of this detail, my best guess is that it
is specified this way just because it's nice that initial key exchange
and subsequent key exchange are handled identically.

> Would there be any interest in relaxing this, so that data exchange can
> continue in parallel with rekey computation?  Or has someone already
> done that?  (I don't recall hearing of any, but that means little.)

I agree it makes sense to relax, but I'm afraid I can't offer much help.
My implementation (lsh) doesn't get the maintenance it needs these days.

Regards,
/Niels

-- 
Niels Möller. PGP key CB4962D070D77D7FCB8BA36271D8F1FF368C6677.
Internet email is subject to wholesale government surveillance.