No MTI Crypto without Public Review
draft-rsalz-drbg-speck-wap-wep-01
Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
---|---|---|---|
Author | Rich Salz | ||
Last updated | 2017-01-09 (Latest revision 2016-07-08) | ||
RFC stream | (None) | ||
Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
Formats | |||
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) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
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.)