On 04 Sep 2014, at 15:56, Tom Henderson <[email protected]> wrote: > On 09/04/2014 12:48 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote: >> >> Hiya, >> >> On 04/09/14 05:56, Tom Henderson wrote: >>>> >>> >>> How could we move this issue forward? Stephen, would you advocate >>> putting in 2048-bit and 4096-bit groups (perhaps with values 11 and 12 >>> respectively)? >> >> I would advocate putting in the 2048 bit group yes. I figure >> you probably don't need the 4096 one on the basis that before >> one would go there you'd want to switch to some form of ECC. >> So I'd not argue to define a codepoint for the 4096 bit group >> for now myself, but equally, I'd not argue against doing so. > > I'm fine with that (adding the 2048 bit group). I propose to add it as > "value 11" in the list. I'll wait a few days for concurrence or lazy > consensus before making the change, however.
+1 René -- Dipl.-Inform. Rene Hummen, Ph.D. Student Chair of Communication and Distributed Systems RWTH Aachen University, Germany tel: +49 241 80 21426 web: http://www.comsys.rwth-aachen.de/team/rene-hummen/
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Hipsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/hipsec
