Hi,
On Mon, June 27, 2016 12:45 pm, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote:
On 06/27/2016 06:24 PM, Derek Atkins wrote:
Hi,
I'm in favor of accepting this.
I'll also point out that I had made another suggested update on April 14
(Subject: Proposed Patch to RFC4880bis to reserve two public key
numbers) which has not been incorporated into the document.
There seems to be a lot of doubt about the security of Algebraic Eraser
protocols (at least controversy) and little research compared to other
key exchange methods, without much gain from implementing it. What
would be the rationale for adding it?
Then don't implement it. I'm not asking for it to be mandatory to
implement, so if you don't trust it for some reason then you can choose
not to accept it.
The rationale for adding it is that it MAY be used by implementations who
want/need it. If that happens to be only a single implementation (ours)
then so be it.
I'd pose the question in the opposite direction: what HARM is there in
adding it to the list of known algorithms?
-derek
--
Derek Atkins 617-623-3745
derek(_at_)ihtfp(_dot_)com www.ihtfp.com
Computer and Internet Security Consultant
_______________________________________________
openpgp mailing list
openpgp(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/openpgp