[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Informational RFC to be: draft-nakajima-camellia-02.txt
Given this, I suggest that we last-call Camellia as Proposed. The
NESSIE project seems to have endorsed more ciphers than I'd have
recommended -- their attitude seemed to be "if there are no known
problems and it meets the specs, we'll bless it" -- but given that and
the CRYPTREC recommendation, I see no reason not to go ahead.
In message <200303040214.LAA09336@sucaba.isl.ntt.co.jp>, Shiho MORIAI writes:
>
>Dear Steven,
>
>It is my pleasure to inform you that our encryption algorithm Camellia
>has been selected by both the EU NESSIE and Japan CRYPTREC projects.
>We hope that these endorsements will support publication of
>Camellia-related documents as standards track RFCs, as you suggested
>below.
>
>Thank you very much for waiting for the outcome of the NESSIE and
>CRYPTREC processes before proceeding.
>
>Best regards,
>Shiho
>
>* EU NESSIE project *
>On February 27, the NESSIE project published a press release on the
>announcement of the final selection of crypto algorithms. Camellia
>was selected as a 128-bit block cipher in the NESSIE portfolio of
>recommended cryptographic. For the category of block ciphers, they
>selected MISTY1 and Camellia out of 16 submissions and also
>recommended the AES. Further information is available at:
>http://www.cryptonessie.org.
>
>* Japan CRYPTREC project *
>Camellia was included in the list of cryptographic techniques for the
>use of Japanese e-Government systems, which was published by Ministry
>of Public Management, Home Affairs, Posts and Telecommunications
>(MPHPT) and Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) on February
>20, 2003. The cryptographic techniques on the said list were selected
>based on the evaluation results by the Cryptography Research and
>Evaluation Committees (CRYPTREC).
>
>Unfortunately, the press release and the list are published in
>Japanese only.
>http://www.meti.go.jp/feedback/data/i30220cj.html
>http://www.meti.go.jp/feedback/downloadfiles/i30220ej.pdf
>
>
>>Dear Steven,
>>
>>>There are several parts to the answer. First, there is no IETF policy
>>>against patented technology; we simply require an IPR statmeent. Even
>>>that is only required for standards-track documents. In addition, RC2
>>>was used with S/MIME, a non-IETF protocol that was widely deployed
>>>before it was turned over to the IETF (see Appendix C of RFC 2311).
>>
>>>With regard to your main question: before the AES process, there was a
>>>strong need for a cipher with a 128-bit key. There were no good
>>>candidates. As a result, it made more sense to publish various
>>>algorithms. It was unclear if any would gain market share or be
>>>endorsed by the cryptographic community. Thus, it made perfect sense
>>>to publish RC5 and CAST-128, and even CAST-256 -- it was approved for
>>>publication by the IESG in March, 1999.
>>>
>>>MISTY1 was originally submitted as an Internet Draft in December, 1997,
>>>before the AES process even started. Its approval (September, 2000) is
>>>rather late, given the criteria I have outlined.
>>>
>>>It was after Round I of the AES process concluded, in April 1999, that
>>>the Security Area -- then led by Jeff Schiller and Marcus Leech,
>>>and with agreement from me -- started to discourage any IETF
>>>standardization of other ciphers.
>>
>>I've understood the IETF standardization policy change about other
>>ciphers after Round I of the AES process.
>>
>>
>>>>2. Camellia is under final consideration within several bodies
>>>>qualified to evaluate cryptographic algorithms: the NESSIE project
>>>>(http://www.cryptonessie.org) and the CRYPTREC project
>>>>(http://www.ipa.go.jp/security/enc/CRYPTREC/index-e.html). The NESSIE
>>>>project will publish a selected list of cryptographic algorithms in
>>>>February 2003.
>>>
>>>My understanding is that CRYPTREC is a project of the Japanese
>>>government, and of MITI in particular. Is that correct? I know more
>>>about NESSIE.
>>
>>Yes, CRYPTREC is a project of the Japanese government, and of METI
>>(Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry) and Ministry of Public
>>Management, Home Affairs, Posts and Telecommunications in FY2001.
>>They have evaluated the cryptographic techniques which are submitted
>>to this project and/or widely-used and will publish a list of
>>cryptographic techniques for Japanese e-Government systems in April
>>2003.
>>
>>>>If the NESSIE project and/or the CRYPTRECE project select Camellia for
>>>>inclusion in their standards, can you accept the draft to be published
>>>>as an Informational RFC without the following notice?
>>>
>>>Absolutely. If one of those groups endorsed it, we would also be
>>>willing to publish applications of Camellia as standards track RFCs,
>>>though again, that decision is up to the working groups. Do you want
>>>to wait for the outcome of the NESSIE and CRYPTREC processes before
>>>proceeding?
>>
>>Yes, we can wait for the NESSIE and CRYPTREC processes to determine
>>their final lists. I'll let you know ASAP we receive the notice.
>
>>FYI, on November 28, the CRYPTREC project published the draft of the
>>final list to call for public comments, on which Camellia is selected.
>>http://www.ipa.go.jp/security/enc/CRYPTREC/fy14/cryptrec20021128_status.html
>>(Unfortunately, Japanese only...)
>>
>>Best regards,
>>Shiho
>>
>>Shiho Moriai
>>Information Security Project
>>NTT Laboratories
>>TEL: +81-468-59-2007 FAX: +81-468-59-3858
>
>
>Shiho Moriai
>Information Security Project
>NTT Laboratories
>TEL: +81-468-59-2007 FAX: +81-468-59-3858
>
--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb (me)
http://www.wilyhacker.com (2nd edition of "Firewalls" book)