W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-encryption@w3.org > January 2002

Re: Encrypting the IV - again. Was: Re: nonce length

From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 17:54:47 -0500
Message-Id: <200201282254.RAA14246@tux.w3.org>
To: Christian Geuer-Pollmann <geuer-pollmann@nue.et-inf.uni-siegen.de>, "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>
Cc: Dan Lanz <lanz@zolera.com>, xml-encryption@w3.org, blaird@microsoft.com
On Monday 28 January 2002 17:09, Christian Geuer-Pollmann wrote:
> Well, it seems to me that I do not need obvious facts to introduce
> necessary changes into the spec but well-known names ;-((

Hi Christian, I'm not advocating that necessarily, nor that we just need a 
reference in order to accept it. In fact, I'm not opposed to encrypting the 
IV. I'm just saying that I prefer that *this* WG not take it upon itself to 
introduce a "new mode". I'm most comfortable if the issue has 
been addressed by others and it's been vetted/discussed/standardized, etc. 
That's that.

So, what do others people think? Should we encrypt the IV? (If so, we'll do 


Joseph Reagle Jr.                 http://www.w3.org/People/Reagle/
W3C Policy Analyst                mailto:reagle@w3.org
IETF/W3C XML-Signature Co-Chair   http://www.w3.org/Signature/
W3C XML Encryption Chair          http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/
Received on Monday, 28 January 2002 17:54:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:02 UTC