Re: [Cfrg] Re: [saag] Algorithm upgrades

[Sam Hartman <hartmans at mit.edu>]

>>>>> "Hallam-Baker," == Hallam-Baker, Phillip <pbaker at verisign.com> writes:

    >> 1. _New_ protocols that are being design should include the
    >> ability to negotiate algorithms. This is just good hygiene. If
    >> this is not formalized, it should be.

    Hallam-Baker,> I strongly disagree. History has showed that
    Hallam-Baker,> negotiation mechanisms can lead to worse security
    Hallam-Baker,> problems than they are meant to address. The IETF
    Hallam-Baker,> has certainly showed an exceptional ability to
    Hallam-Baker,> overcomplicate them.

I agree there are problems with negotiation layers.  

However so far they seem to be the only mechanism I've found that
work.  Can you explain how we would have handled the conversion from
DES to AES for IPSec in an alternate universe where all the protocols
worked as you desire?  I think that will help me understand what you
propose much better.

--Sam


_______________________________________________
Cfrg mailing list
Cfrg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg