[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 3DES

To: ipsec@tis.com
Subject: Re: 3DES
From: "Scott G. Kelly" <skelly@redcreek.com>
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 10:29:12 -0700
Organization: RedCreek Communications
References: <01BD7CBA.20D96000@BIGHUGE>
Sender: owner-ipsec@ex.tis.com

Rob Adams wrote:
> 
> However, some of us are saddled with 2 products, for political reasons.. %)
> One with 3DES and one without.   If we add 3DES as a MUST, we're just
> going to end up with a load of products with interoperable IPSEC code in them
> that aren't IPSEC compliant..

This is a good point - while I agree that almost any useful
implementation will support 3DES, it's not clear that we should
*mandate* anything more than a minimal interoperability subset.

References:

RE: 3DES

From: Rob Adams <adams@cisco.com>

Prev by Date: Re: 3DES
Next by Date: Re: 3DES (was: ipsec vs. firewalls)
Next by thread: RE: [Karen Seo: Thomas Narten -- clarification, etc.]
Index(es):
- Main
- Thread