I am OK with registering the 192 bit versions. Sent from my iPhone
> On Jul 18, 2013, at 5:17 PM, Mike Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > > Richard had previously requested that we register algorithm identifiers for > AES using 192 bit keys. As he previously pointed out, “It seems like if > we're going to support AES, then we should support AES. Every AES library I > know of supports all three key lengths, so it's not like there's extra cost > besides the registry entry.” (I’ll note that we already have algorithm > identifiers for the “mid-size” HMAC and signature functions “HS384”, “RS384”, > and “ES384”.) > > I heard no objections at the time. I’m therefore thinking that we should > register algorithm identifiers for these key sizes as well. Specifically, we > would add: > “A192KW”, “ECDH-ES+A192KW”, “A192GCMKW”, “PBES2-HS256+A192KW”, > “A192CBC-HS384”, and “A192GCM”. Support for these algorithms would be > optional. > > What do people think? > > -- Mike > > _______________________________________________ > jose mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
_______________________________________________ jose mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose
