Subject: Camellia draft

From: David Shaw <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 23:36:06 -0400

Here's a stab at a draft for Camellia in OpenPGP.  Some notes:

* I structured it as a personal informational submission.  I'm not
sure of the procedure (WG consensus?), but I'm sure that making this a
official standards-track submission from the WG would be preferable.

* I haven't yet sent this to the draft submission address at the IETF.
If people here more or less like what I've written, I will.

* This draft is marked as "Updates: 2440" and references 2440
incorrectly here and there.  That's just a placeholder.  I assume that
2440bis will be published with its new number fairly soon, and as soon
as that happens, I'll update the draft.

David

---

From: Florian Weimer <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 May 2007 14:47:52 +0200

* David Shaw:

> 5.  IANA Considerations
>
>    This document requires IANA to assign an algorithm number from the
>    registry of OpenPGP Symmetric Key Algorithms that was created by
>    [RFC2440].

Has this registry been created with RFC 2440?  I can't find it on the
IANA web site.

---

From: David Shaw <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 09:12:02 -0400

> Has this registry been created with RFC 2440?  I can't find it on the

It has not.  The registry is created with 2440bis, but since 2440bis
hasn't been published yet it does not have a number.  I'm using 2440
as a "least incorrect" placeholder until the real number is available.

David

---

From: Jon Callas <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 11:02:19 -0700

> as a "least incorrect" placeholder until the real number is available.

I would argue that 2440bis would be the least incorrect placeholder.

I have one suggestion that that would be for a small note on  
interoperability. Something like:

Note that while the OpenPGP cipher negotiation prevents  
interoperability problems with messages, if Camillia (or any other  
optional cipher) is used for encrypting private keys, there could be  
interoperability problems when migrating a private key from one  
system to another.

That may not be perfect, but you get the idea. Otherwise, I think the  
draft is fine.

	Jon

---

From: David Shaw <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 15:11:44 -0400

> I would argue that 2440bis would be the least incorrect placeholder.

Fixed.

> interoperability problems when migrating a private key from one  

Good point.  I did this:

   Note that while OpenPGP cipher negotiation prevents
   interoperability problems with public key encrypted messages, if
   Camellia (or any other optional cipher) is used for encrypting
   private keys, there could be interoperability problems when
   migrating a private key from one system to another.  A similar
   issue can arise when using an optional cipher for symmetric-only
   encrypted messages (which may not perform cipher negotiation).
   Senders of such messages should take care they are using a cipher
   that their intended recipient can decrypt.

David