>From: "Jeffrey I. Schiller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.5 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.0.30 i586) >X-Accept-Language: en >MIME-Version: 1.0 >To: Karl Auerbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >CC: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > "Karl Auerbach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Fred Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Scott Bradner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > IFWP Discussion List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: fyi - an exchange of mail with ICANN >References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >Karl Auerbach wrote: > >> I suspect that this won't often be a problem, but it could happen in some >> of those tight spaces, like the IP protocol number. > >There is another interesting space. That is the space of algorithm ID's (or >cipher suites) in security protocols. For example the OpenPGP Working Group >feels pretty strongly that PGP ciphers should only be approved by the >Working Group (or the Sec AD/IESG in the absence of the WG). The concern is >that someone would propose a 40-bit strong cipher suite. The working group >may want to maintain the "expectation of strength" of PGP by reserving the >right to not allocate a cipher suite ID for such a cipher. > >In this case we would not want the proponents of the 40-bit cipher suite to >shop around for standards bodies (or the PSO itself) for an allocation. > >The bottom line is that if a WG (which defines a protocol) explicitly states >the rules (or conditions) for allocation of a parameter, is the ICANN (and >by ICANN I mean the processes sponsored by the ICANN which may include the >PSO) bound to follow? If it is, then I have no problem. If it isn't, then >the autonomy of the standards process becomes at risk. > > -Jeff > > > -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Don't bother me. I'm living happily ever after.
