On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 03:25:48PM -0800, Jon Callas wrote:
If folks could comment on this draft, I'd appreciate it.
There may well be nothing to say (the draft is not particularly
complex or controversial), in which case a "looks sane to me" comment
would be appreciated. It's hard to tell the difference between
silence because there are no objections and silence because there is
It looks sane to me. However, while RFC3713 specifies clearly that
Camillia has a 128-bit block, I think you should too. Because of the
eccentricities of what we do with CFB, block size is very important.
I think it's wise to point out that has the same block size as AES
and Twofish. It's just another sentence.
Good point. I'll put that in.
One last question is why only 256-bit keys? Why not 128 and 256 (I
don't see the point of 192-bit keys, myself)?
I did 256 mainly because that was what Hironobu SUZUKI mentioned when
he brought it up. I figured that if the WG wanted 128-bit keys,
someone would bring it up. And now someone has. :)
I agree with you about 192-bit keys. They're neither here nor there.
Thanks for the comments!