RE: Early Draft Algorithms Section

At 12:43 5/15/2001 -0400, Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 wrote:
%% Well, if you look in Schneier's book I'm sure you can find hundreds of
%% algorithms, but so what?  The specification is extensible so that people
%% who want to use rare, proprietary, or bizarre algorithms certainly can....
%% symmetric algorithms.  2 or 3 well chosen strong algorithms are a much
%% better idea from the viewpoint of the goals of interoperability and
%% widespread implementation, including lower end devices....
%% The question of parameterization is as I have commented above and needs,
%% in my opinion, more feedback from WG members to determine a consensus.
%% In this case, parameterization would probably have to be via child
%% parameter element(s) of the algorithm role element.

Just to reiterate Don's points, our goal via the requirements document [1] 
(which is derived from the charter [2] on this note) is to come up with the 
a minimal set of required algorithms that are/will-soon be widely 
implemented, relatively strong, unencumbered, and exercise the features of 
the specification for interoperability purposes. There has been consensus 
that [3] represents the general scope, number, and actual algorithms we will 
specify. We can alter and make improvements when the benefit is clear and 
there's a ground swell of support, but given 25 folks agreed to it at the 
last meeting I consider it be a rather stable selection. Like we did in 
xmldsig, the number of optional algorithms should be kept to a minimum from 
the start: we want strong evidence that they will be implemented in 
implementations tracking the spec in the next 4 months. (For example, the 
April release of the Alphaworks XSS is supporting [4].)

Specifying the algorithms as we did in xmldsig would be symmetric with that 
spec, but Amir's proposal isn't counter to that (others can still specify a 
suite via one identifier) and nicely addresses a couple of issues and we 
should give it some more thought -- since we've been discussing it for a 
while now, I think it merits a more fully specified proposal incorporating 
the results of the discussion.

[1] 
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-xml-encryption-req-20010420#sec-design-principles-scope
[2] http://www.w3.org/Encryption/2001/01/xmlenc-charter.html
5. The specification must define a minimal set of algorithms and key 
structures necessary for interoperability purposes. {Reagle}
[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-xml-encryption-req-20010420#sec-Algorithms
[4] Supported algorithms:
RSA using v1.5 padding (requiring IBM JCE 1.2.1)
Three-key triple-DES using EDE in CBC mode with PKCS #5 padding
DES in CBC mode with PKCS #5 padding
Base64

__
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 Thursday, 17 May 2001 12:20:17 UTC