Vin McLellan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ekr> I don't believe this was the case. The original SSLv3 drafts
> Ekr> did not have DH/DSS/RC4 support. TLSv1 continued this.
> Ekr> The evidence that this was simply a glitch is that
> Ekr> DH_anon _was_ defined with RC4.
>
> I had in mind the debate you had with Dave Wagner, David Neuman,
> and Adam Black,
FWIW, Chris Newman and Adam Back.
> I had the distinct impression that some people felt strongly that
> proprietary (or somewhat-proprietary) symmetric cryptosystems should not be
> used where they were not absolutely required for backwards compatability
> with SSLv.3, but that others -- you notably -- pushed both the WG and
> Microsoft to include RC4 and a full array of DH_DSS combinations.
>
> Hmmm. I just pulled up the archives of the TLS WG discussions in
> February <http://www.imc.org/ietf-tls/mail-archive/threads.html#01705>, and
> I see that it was you -- while expressing skepticism about whether Rivest or
> RSA still had any IP in RC4 -- who noted the availability of the ARC4 clones
> as a way of sidestepping the issue;-)
Yes, this matches my memory. However, note that these issues were
raised when additional RC4 cipher suites were proposed. What I was
trying to say is that I don't believe they were the original
motivation for not having RC4/DSA/DH. Rather, that was a mistake
(stemming from the non-orthogonality of ciphers in SSL).
-Ekr
--
[Eric Rescorla [EMAIL PROTECTED]]
PureTLS - free SSLv3/TLS software for Java
http://www.rtfm.com/puretls/
______________________________________________________________________
OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org
User Support Mailing List [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Automated List Manager [EMAIL PROTECTED]
