Sam Hartman <hartmans-ietf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Hi, folks. The IESG has received a last call comment recommending > that the new rc4 cipher for ssh be published as informational rather > than as a proposed standard because of weaknesses in rc4. It would be > inappropriate to make a decision based on one comment so I am > soliciting comments on this point. > > The argument in favor of publishing this document at proposed is that > the existing arcfour cipher is part of a standard and that many other > IETF protocols use rc4 in standards track documents. A similar argument could be made for MD5. I don't think it is a strong argument. If there is a known public weakness today, publishing it as a standard seem like a poor idea to me. FWIW, my general comment is that the IETF should not promote RC4. Technically better alternatives exists; and the cryptographic/IPR history of RC4 doesn't improve the case for it. I have similar thoughts on the use of RC4 in SASL DIGEST-MD5. Cheers, Simon _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf