[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: AH and ESP Orthogonality
> From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@piermont.com>
> William Allen Simpson writes:
> > Look folks, we discussed this all last year. We knew about the cut and
> > paste attack before we wrote the documents.
>
> Actually, we didn't during the initial drafts,
Ah, Perry, but I beg to differ. We knew about general cut and paste
against CBC _long_ before we wrote the drafts. It is a "feature" of
CBC itself.
Atkinson always had words in his drafts about the need for integrity.
There was always a strong consensus for providing integrity.
Bellovin merely described a specific scenario last April where cut and
paste was a problem, and integrity was required. We added words to that
effect to our documents.
> and we were discussing
> combined transforms as long ago as Toronto, though we didn't envision
> making them mandatory at the time.
>
Yes, we were! And we _decided_ as a WG _not_ to use them, that
orthogonality was better!
> Anyway, lets just consider the situation on its current technical
> merits, and not try to figure out who said what when...
>
My point is that we are rehashing old arguments, and undermining the
good work and deployment that this WG generated.
There has been no demonstrated need to eliminate orthogonality, and
worse, it has been shown to be computationally problematic.
What is the NEW attack, that we had not previously considered, that
would require a removal of orthogonality?
What was Atkinson's "serious mistake"?
WSimpson@UMich.edu
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
BSimpson@MorningStar.com
Key fingerprint = 2E 07 23 03 C5 62 70 D3 59 B1 4F 5E 1D C2 C1 A2
Follow-Ups: