On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 12:06:41PM -0500, Eastlake III Donald-LDE008 wrote: > I'm inclined to modify the draft to define "MAY+", meaning MAY but > likely to change to SHOULD, and to list AES-CCM as having that status.
From my perspective, the most important thing is to encourage implementors to experiment with AES-CCM, and to start testing it in various interoperability tests. This is far more important than whether or not AES-CCM is "SHOULD", or "MAY", or "MAY+".
So Tero's question is probably the most pertinent one --- has anyone played with AES-CCM in their implementation yet?
- Ted