- From: Joseph Reagle <reagle@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 17:54:47 -0500
- 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 it.) -- 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