From: Jiri Baum <jirib@sweeney.cs.monash.edu.au>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 1995 13:59:41 +0800
To: rsalz@osf.org (Rich Salz)
Subject: Re: NSA, ITAR, NCSA and plug-in hooks.
In-Reply-To: <9511142220.AA13813@sulphur.osf.org>
Message-ID: <199511160546.QAA00358@sweeney.cs.monash.edu.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Hello Rich Salz <rsalz@osf.org>
  and rsalz@osf.org, ses@tipper.oit.unc.edu
  and cypherpunks@toad.com, owner-cypherpunks@toad.com,
  and s1113645@tesla.cc.uottawa.ca

...
> >are specifically designed for the insertion of cryptographic materials, 
> >or is it the fact that they could be used to support cryptographic 
...
> Basically, generic buffer-manipulation is okay.  "Keyed compression"
> where you explicitly passed something called a key to a DLL routine
> would be looked on suspiciously.
...

Why would you call it a key?

How about compression "options"? The compression algorithm could
have a "speed" mode and a "size" mode. It could also have options
for file type etc...

Recipient id could be passed along to check which compression
method the recipient knows.

...
> An abstract set of open/modify/close
> routines (where open returned a pointer to opaque state, say a session
> key :) would be fine.
...

So what's the difference... apart from what it's called?


Jiri
- --
If you want an answer, please mail to <jirib@cs.monash.edu.au>.
On sweeney, I may delete without reading!
PGP 463A14D5 (but it's at home so it'll take a day or two)
PGP EF0607F9 (but it's at uni so don't rely on it too much)

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2i

iQCVAwUBMKrQSyxV6mvvBgf5AQFUqAP/R3IGOey/1NbyyzTLYgRsrcbQtM1HHc73
PzXijxLJHvCjUTRaHS1feBRJv+dbwAMlH8yO+Q4DKuy5YCdv5f3kJz0Bsyejr8/C
R3JOPSH4nePOGR8rfTK1AUMPQIGn50NXIaNT0OLdVSGU3444W4xruXiqkLlzduBn
2UNLX7DNXls=
=wGpa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----