Subject: New bulk encryption algorithms

From: [email-masked] (Niels M�ller)
Date: 11 Sep 2000 01:43:29 +0200

I'm about to add support for serpent and rijndael to LSH. I'm using
the names "rijndael-cbc" and "serpent-cbc". Both use 256 bit keys, and
cbc chaining, just like for twofish. Comments? 

/Niels

---

From: [email-masked] (Niels M�ller)
Date: 11 Sep 2000 17:55:29 +0200

Tero Kivinen <[email-masked]> writes:

> Niels Möller writes:
> I think that is good idea, but use [email-masked]
> and [email-masked] instead as long as there is no draft
> out and those names has not yet been allocated from IANA. Allocating
> those names from IANA can be little hard now, because the base draft
> is not yet out as an RFC.

Ok, I'll do that (the same applies to my SRP support, I guess). 

> I think the most important thing to do not is to get the RFC out, and
> I would really like people to concentrate on that, and postpone all
> new ideas etc after that.

I can understand that point of view, but I also spend some time
hacking on my implementation. I think it is a good thing to have the
wg informed about what implementors do, even if standardizing those
things is not urgent.

/Niels
.