On Behalf Of Paul Hoffman
case of two of the three above the justification given was some variation
"if these really were no good then they'd be explicitly disallowed.
they aren't, it's perfectly OK to do this".
I'm skeptical, to say the least. If you have actual quotes of people
saying that, fine; quoting someone third-hand through an IETF
security geek is not a good way to get accurate results.
I'm with Peter on this one.
I don't want to try to one-up Peter's stories (although I might be able to),
I've also seen all sorts of blunders caused by people unfamiliar with
public-key technology not understanding things that everyone on this list
almost certainly takes for granted. I'd guess that most people who have worked
with users of public-key technology for any length of time have a similar set
I've also seen people wanting to do make all sorts of crypto-blunders to make
things easier to use, more efficient, or to comply with the letter of
regulations instead of the spirit.
So explicitly banning things that might qualify as such blunders is probably a
very good idea.