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

Re: SOI QUESTIONS: 2.2 Perfect forward secrecy (PFS)

To: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>, ipsec@lists.tislabs.com
Subject: Re: SOI QUESTIONS: 2.2 Perfect forward secrecy (PFS)
From: Uri Blumenthal <uri@bell-labs.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 10:59:27 -0400
In-Reply-To: <200206190546.g5J5kLr23037@marajade.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>
Organization: Lucent Technologies / Bell Labs
References: <200206190546.g5J5kLr23037@marajade.sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>
Reply-To: uri@bell-labs.com
Sender: owner-ipsec@lists.tislabs.com

On Wednesday 19 June 2002 01:46, Michael Richardson wrote:
> I would prefer to see PFS as not optional.

Since there is performance impact, I'd prefer to have a computationally 
inexpensive key agreement path, sacrificing PFS if necessary.
-- 
Regards,
Uri-David
-=-=-<>-=-=-
<Disclaimer>

References:
- Re: SOI QUESTIONS: 2.2 Perfect forward secrecy (PFS)
  - From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ottawa.on.ca>

Prev by Date: Re: SOI QUESTIONS: 2.3 Perfect forward secrecy (PFS)
Next by Date: Re: SOI QUESTIONS: 2.3 Authentication styles
Prev by thread: Re: SOI QUESTIONS: 2.2 Perfect forward secrecy (PFS)
Next by thread: Re: SOI QUESTIONS: 2.2 Perfect forward secrecy (PFS)
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread