David Crick <dacrick(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
One could argue about adding 128-bit Twofish as well/instead,
as it's been around longer and also went through the deep AES
process scrutiny. However, on Camellia's side, it is a post-AES
cipher, and so benefits from more recent insights / design
trade-offs, PLUS it has gone through the scrutiny of both
NESSIE and CRYPTREC. In addition it's already implemented
(in both 128-bit and 256-bit lengths) in applications (e.g. the
Linux kernel and Firefox 3.0 [beta]).
I have no objection against your opinion that about Camellia. It is
well designed cipher. I mentioned that most important thing is that we
need 256-bit for some security reason for OpenPGP.
http://www.imc.org/ietf-openpgp/mail-archive/msg20263.html
One outstanding question I see: have we ever had a reply back
from NTT giving an IPR statement SPECIFICALLY for OpenPGP, as
requested by Hironobu SUZUKI here?
Yes. I already have discussed about it with a NTT person who is a team
leader of Camellia project. They will give an IPR for OpenPGP.
Regards,
---
Hironobu SUZUKI <hironobu at h2np dot net>
Tokyo, Japan.
http://h2np.net