On Fri, 6 Mar 2015, Paul Hoffman wrote:
This got very little interest, which surprised me. Without a few more people
who will commit to review the document and offer comments, we can't really call
it a WG work item. Is there really so little interest in new algorithms that
are being adopted in other protocols?
If you are an IPsec implementer, it would be very useful to know whether or not
you would support adding this algorithm to your implementation, and why.
libreswan will add support for this algorithm in IKE and use the kernel
implementation for ESP.
Even with low "interest", this should be taken on by the WG, or else we
will just get another private use number like SERPENT(252) or
TWOFISH(253) or KAME_NULL(251) that everyone will use.
Paul
_______________________________________________
IPsec mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
