[147514] in cryptography@c2.net mail archive
Re: [Cryptography] encoding formats should not be committee'ized
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (ianG)
Sat Oct 5 10:45:58 2013
X-Original-To: cryptography@metzdowd.com
Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2013 11:09:05 +0300
From: ianG <iang@iang.org>
To: Peter Gutmann <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
In-Reply-To: <E1VS0a3-00048G-W6@login01.fos.auckland.ac.nz>
Cc: cryptography@metzdowd.com, dan@geer.org
Errors-To: cryptography-bounces+crypto.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@metzdowd.com
On 4/10/13 11:17 AM, Peter Gutmann wrote:
> Trying to get back on track, I think any attempt at TLS 2 is doomed. We've
> already gone through, what, about a million messages bikeshedding over the
> encoding format and have barely started on the crypto. Can you imagine any
> two people on this list agreeing on what crypto mechanism to use? Or whether
> identity-hiding (at the expense of complexity/security) should trump
> simplicity/security 9at the expense of exposing identity information)?
Au contraire! I think what we have shown is that the elements in
dispute must be found in the competition. Not specified beforehand.
Every proposal must include its own encoding, its own crypto suite(s),
its own identity-hiding, and dollops and dollops of simplicity.
Let the games begin!
iang
_______________________________________________
The cryptography mailing list
cryptography@metzdowd.com
http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography
