At 07:28 PM 1/12/99 -0500, uri wrote:
So, Twofish is a logical successor for Blowfish - and let's treat it
like that. If people have Blowfish-encrypted stuff already (which I
doubt, but you never know) - they can do a one-time move. Better
than to carry unnecessary baggage.
I'm uncomfortable with re-declaring an identifier. It's just not good
engineering practice to my mind. I think it is much better use another
identifier. This would only put us up to 10, and that includes four
identifiers that are presently only reserved. If 2440 were not out, I'd
have no problem. But it is out there, and it just bugs me to redeclare an
identifier if it inconveniences even a single user.
By the bye, an inconvenient page break in 2440 made me say something stupid
in my last message. The identifier should be 10, not 8.
Jon Callas jon(_at_)pgp(_dot_)com
CTO, Total Network Security 3965 Freedom Circle
Network Associates, Inc. Santa Clara, CA 95054
Fingerprints: D1EC 3C51 FCB1 67F8 4345 4A04 7DF9 C2E6 F129 27A9 (DSS)
665B 797F 37D1 C240 53AC 6D87 3A60 4628 (RSA)