Re: draft-ietf-ipsec-ah-md5-00.txt

["William Allen Simpson" <bill.simpson@um.cc.umich.edu>]

> From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@MIT.EDU>
> I think we should at the very least put a comment into the draft.
>
> whether or not this is likely), we won't need to rely on someone
> remember that we made this assumption, and that we now need to do
> something different now that this assumption is gone.
>
This is a fine idea of text to include, and I will be sure to add it to
the security considerations on the next pass.

Thank you for your review.  Since no other comments have been received
on this draft, and new drafts with DES are being proposed, may I assume
that we are ready to go forward with it?

Is there anyone in the WG who opposes this MD5 transform (as the
REQUIRED _BASIC_ one of the many transforms that we will write)?

Bill.Simpson@um.cc.umich.edu

---

• Prev by Date: draft-ietf-ipsec-<many>-00.txt
• Next by Date: triple DES
• Prev by thread: draft-ietf-ipsec-ah-md5-00.txt
• Next by thread: Re: draft-ietf-ipsec-<many>-00.txt
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread