Peter Palfrader <[email protected]> wrote: >> Why not just use the term "unauthenticated encryption", when that's >> exactly what's happening?
> There is such a thing as authenticated encryption[1], as in AES GCM for
> instance, and what we're doing here is not its opposite. Thus, I think
> calling this "unauthenticated encryption" would be a bad idea.
+1
and, the privacy that results from the encryption, while the primary carrot,
is simply the result of finding a way to do a DH operation. The part that
we are all discussing is determining how (much) to trust the DH results.
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting for hire =-
pgp2ba6wfcukU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
