Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-ipsec-esp-ah-algorithms-00.txt

["Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>]

On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 12:06:41PM -0500, Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 wrote:
> I'm inclined to modify the draft to define "MAY+", meaning MAY but
> likely to change to SHOULD, and to list AES-CCM as having that status.

From my perspective, the most important thing is to encourage
implementors to experiment with AES-CCM, and to start testing it in
various interoperability tests.  This is far more important than
whether or not AES-CCM is "SHOULD", or "MAY", or "MAY+".

So Tero's question is probably the most pertinent one --- has anyone
played with AES-CCM in their implementation yet?

					- Ted