RE: wide-block modes
>>Can we hold off discussing these until after we get p1619 out the door?
In theory, one could vote for LRW-AES only, if there would be a
follow-up standard offering higher security. If LRW-AES would be the
only standard, some companies could just walk away, because it does not
solve their problems. In this light, it could be important to know now,
what will follow, what alternatives one might get.
Laszlo
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: wide-block modes
> From: Shai Halevi <shaih@alum.mit.edu>
> Date: Fri, December 23, 2005 3:01 pm
> To: SISWG <stds-p1619@IEEE.ORG>
>
> Can we hold off discussing these until after we get p1619 out the door?
>
> > I would like to hear a consensus from the other members that a new
> > PAR P1619a for large block encryption would be warranted? My vote is yes.
>
> In the past we discussed including these modes in a standard for "captured
> modes" (i.e., modes with no inter-operability requirements), something like
> 1619.2.
>
> My vote will be "yes" in principle, but only after we are done with 1619.
>
> -- Shai