On 17 March 2016 at 21:09, Martin Thomson <martin.thom...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 18 March 2016 at 12:37, Mike Hamburg <m...@shiftleft.org> wrote: >> No. The goal should be to remove ciphers, not add new ones, unless we have >> a really compelling reason. > > A necessary, but sufficient set of reasons might include: > > 1. thorough cryptanalysis > 2. advantages over existing ciphers on important metrics like security > and speed, though this would likely need to be significant at this > point > 3. interest in implementation > > Speck is 0 from 3.
I might make it .5 for 3. Speck is specifically designed to be a lightweight cipher for constrained devices. With RC4 dead in the water - we don't have one of those. (Unless ChaCha20 is better than Speck/Simon/related...) That said, we'd still need the other 2.5 - and no, I'm not supporting it either. -tom _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
