On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 12:02:35AM -0500, Nicolas Williams wrote: > On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 12:58:56AM -0400, Jeffrey Hutzelman wrote: > > - generality > > - allowing the feature to be negotiated for any algorithm, not just > > a particular gcm algorithm, without a cross product explosion > > I'd rather have a magic alg name that does this. It's less code, a lot > less code. We don't need no stinking generality here :) given that we > weren't given it to begin with :) > > BTW, I would love to use the reserved field of KEXINIT to negotiate > retriable key exchagne (a big deal for gss keyex). Sent to soon. I meant to add that your scheme isn't general enough to give us retriable kexinit...
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.