...
As a document shepeard I have made note that this is desired, but at
the same time this is a topic that was outside the scope of the working
group.
This is on the other hand a topic that belongs in the IETF review.
So my questions to the IETF (paraphrashing George Orwell)
"Are all crypto algorithms equal, but some are more equal than others?"
not all are equal, from a purely cryptanalytic perspective. Among those that
may be equivalent from that perspective, there are other meaningful
differences, e.g., how widely are the algs implemented and used.
Who gets to decide on what algorithms get first class status and
based on what criteria?
If we look at what the CP developed in the SIDR WG for the RPKI says,
the answer is the IESG (going forward, after an initial set of algs
are adopted based on the SIDR WG process). In the IPSEC, TLS, and
SMIME contexts, the WGs themselves have made the decisions, which the
IESG then approves by virtue of the usual standards track RFC
approval process. I do not believe that the criteria have been
documented uniformly across these WGs.
Steve brought up "national" algorithm, but we have also "personal"
algorithms such as curve25519 or threefish.
WGs like IPsec, TLS, and SMIME have been able to say no to "personal"
algs for a long time.
Steve
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf