-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 06:34:14PM -0500, Derek Atkins wrote:
David Shaw <dshaw(_at_)jabberwocky(_dot_)com> writes:
Even better, even word games can become tiresome.
What do you advocate with regards to IDEA - SHOULD NOT? MUST NOT?
something else?
I would NOT advocate MUST NOT. In fact, I wouldn't even leave it as a
foo-NOT. I'd still leave it in the positive. I'd still rather keep
it as 'SHOULD', but 'MAY' is reasonable. Why is IDEA so detrimental
that you MUST NOT use it?
Speaking strictly in the OpenPGP context, IDEA gives us nothing
special. There are no interoperability issues due to the preferences
system, so IDEA is just other optional cipher in the standard. Why
should it get special treatment (SHOULD)?
Speaking in the PGP 2.x interoperability context, IDEA is necessary.
However, an OpenPGP implementation that does not need to interoperate
with PGP 2.x doesn't need it, and so a SHOULD there is inappropriate.
Either way, I don't advocate MUST NOT. I'm in favor of the way the
draft currently reads (which is MAY along with an explanation of the
PGP 2.x issue) . I do have some sympathy for SHOULD NOT because of
the patent situation.
David
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2rc1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: http://www.jabberwocky.com/david/keys.asc
iD8DBQE+bScm4mZch0nhy8kRAsKAAJ0YF6MHg0y18XxKNdc4FEwVuGRukQCff51k
UePj9oXs30utVasHt9EAb20=
=kp2B
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----