No MTI Crypto without Public Review
draft-rsalz-drbg-speck-wap-wep-01
| Document | Type | Expired Internet-Draft (individual) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Rich Salz | ||
| Last updated | 2017-01-09 (Latest revision 2016-07-08) | ||
| Stream | (None) | ||
| Formats |
Expired & archived
plain text
xml
htmlized
pdfized
bibtex
|
||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-rsalz-drbg-speck-wap-wep-01.txt
Abstract
Cryptography is becoming more important to the IETF and its protocols, and more IETF protocols are using, or looking at, cryptography to increase privacy on the Internet [RFC7258]. This document specifies a proposed best practice for any mechanism (or data format) that uses cryptography; namely, that RFCs cannot specify an algorithm as mandatory-to-implement (MTI) unless that algorithm has had reasonable public review. This document also "sketches out" a rough definition around what such a review would look like.
Authors
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)