RE: Crypto-agility requirement and draft-zorn-radius-encattr/draft-zorn-radius-keywrap

["Dan Harkins" <dharkins@lounge.org>]

  I agree completely. I'd also request that, to the fullest extent
possible, this information address some of the more unexplained parts of
the draft, like key ids. If NIST requires a KEK ID and a KM ID as well
as (the more obvious requirement of) using an approved cipher in an
approved mode then I'd like to know why.

  Dan.

On Wed, August 1, 2007 1:08 pm, David B. Nelson wrote:
> Glen Zorn writes...
>
>> There are multiple interoperable implementations which
>> have been NIST (& at in least one case) Common Criteria certified,
>> however, so we'll just be leaving it as is for now.
>
> I has previously asked if information on the implementations and the
> certifications you mention could (and would) be made available to the WG.
> I
> didn't get a response, so I'll ask again.
>
> Since the "certifyability" seems to be a selling point for this approach,
> it
> seems relevant for the WG to evaluate that information, in deciding on a
> solution.
>
>
>
> --
> to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
> the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
> archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>
>



--
to unsubscribe send a message to radiusext-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/radiusext/>