On 08/26/2016 12:44 AM, Bob Beck wrote:
> On Thursday, 25 August 2016, Ted Unangst <t...@tedunangst.com> wrote:
>> Andreas Bartelt wrote:
>>> On 08/25/16 15:58, Brent Cook wrote:
>>>> No objection here. Anyone else?
>>>>
>>>
>>> in general, I personally would only add further cryptographic primitives
>>> to a TLS configuration in case they provide sufficiently distinctive
>>> advantages over the already available primitives. I don't see this for
>>> Camellia since it doesn't seem to provide any better trade-offs than
>>> AES. Or am I missing something here?
>>
>> Oh, I don't think we should add this to any default config. But the option
>> should be available for users to configure.
>>
> 
> yes on both counts
> 

Just for clarification this means the patch is ok?

Or do you think we should change
>>>>> +         .algo_strength = SSL_HIGH,
to
+               .algo_strength = SSL_MEDIUM,
for the cipher suits to reflect that the implementation didn't have the
same support like DES CBC3, GOST, AES or ChaCha20?

I am now starting with Camellia GCM suits.

Reply via email to