[RC5] Re: rc5-digest V1 #216

Paul Turpie turpie at pemail.net
Mon Jul 6 17:02:58 EDT 1998


>Date: Thu, 2 Jul 1998 08:50:01 +0200
>From: "ALBERTY Pascal" <pal at bsb.be>
>Subject: Re: [RC5] Time out and DES-II-2 challenge
>
>>| Of course I'll do it! But what about people who'll forget to make these
>>| changes.
>>These people will simply do redundant work.  No harm done, just less
>>efficient.
>
>
>That's the problem I pointed out!!! "Just less efficient" can't be
>accepted for DES-II-2 challenge (it's my opinion).
>
>I remember the policy used by solentuna group. The block had a time-out
>of 24 hours (or 72 I don't really remember). Ok it was really short and
>some computers can't participate (some which are not permanently
>conected to the Internet). But for short time challenge, is not a good
>solution ?
>
>- ---------------------------
>ALBERTY Pascal - pal at bsb.be
>Business Solutions Builders


   The thing is, because of the recycling of blocks there is no need for
a block time-out.  If the keyspace is handed out in order, when the
key-servers hand out the last block they can just start back at the
beginning
again.  This means that blocks that are resent are automatically the
oldest blocks, without any need for time-out processing overhead.

A block time-out is unnecessary because of the recycling.
A block time-out would actually slow down the already overworked keyserver.
A block time-out would create more redundant work by the clients, than if
the blocks had been resent out later.
A block time-out would really annoy those with offline clients whose
blocks become redundant.


--
To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest



More information about the rc5 mailing list