Re: Proposed message on perfect forward security

[Phil Karn <karn@unix.ka9q.ampr.org>]

>On the other hand, many other applications have no strong requirement for
>perfect forward security. Examples of these fall generally into that class

But this is not an argument against mechanisms that do provide perfect
forward secrecy unless you can *prove* that the extra cost is
unacceptable. As CPUs get faster, the authors of modexp routines get
smarter, and the IPSEC group gets older, I find it increasing hard to
justify developing lots of different algorithms.  I'd much prefer to
do one for the most general case and leave it at that.

Phil

---

References:

• Proposed message on perfect forward security
• From: Danny.Nessett@eng.sun.com (Dan Nessett)

---

• Prev by Date: Re: WG last call for IPv4 AH and ESP
• Next by Date: MD5 hash calculation
• Prev by thread: Proposed message on perfect forward security
• Next by thread: Re: Proposed message on perfect forward security
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread