On Wed, Mar 12, 2008 at 01:29:49PM -0400, Derek Atkins wrote:
David Shaw <dshaw(_at_)jabberwocky(_dot_)com> writes:
[snip]
I think that is just fine, and thanks for working this out.
I have a minor process question though: I've done a couple of Camellia
drafts as "draft-ietf-openpgp-camellia". Do I need to convert that to
"draft-shaw-openpgp-camellia" (i.e. an individual submission) and
re-submit?
No, it can stay as 'draft-ietf-openpgp-'. No need to rename and
resubmit as an individual.
Great, thanks.
I think we're ready for the final push on Camellia. All of the
suggested changes have been incorporated, and if folks could give it a
final read, I'd appreciate it:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-openpgp-camellia-01.txt
I would particulary appreciate comments on the choice of 128 and
256-bit keys (that is, lacking 192). I tend to agree with Jon that
192 is neither here nor there, but I'm also a major fan of
consistency. If we're going to include 192 for the ECC work, then
it's odd to leave it out here.
David