256-bit vs 512-bit strength security

Ralph Weber roweber at IEEE.org
Thu Sep 13 09:20:30 PDT 2007


* From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
* Ralph Weber <roweber at ieee.org>
*
Kevin had done it again ... caught yours truly in a
significant faux paus.
My humble apologies for changing the max into the min.
Of course, Gideon probably thought I had finally come
to my senses.
In any case, the vote is between 128-bit strength and
256-bit strength.
All the best,
.Ralph
Kevin_Marks at Dell.com wrote:
> I guess what confused me is the 256 vs 512, but aren't we really voting
> on 128 vs 256 being mandatory?
>
> Kevin
>> ----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-t10 at t10.org [mailto:owner-t10 at t10.org] On Behalf Of Ralph
>> Weber
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 9:26 PM
>> To: 't10 at t10.org'
>> Subject: 256-bit vs 512-bit strength security
>>
>> * From the T10 Reflector (t10 at t10.org), posted by:
>> * Ralph Weber <roweber at ieee.org>
>> *
>> Reminder:
>>
>> On Wednesday afternoon in Vancouver, you will be asked
>> to vote your company's position on a choice between
>> mandating 256-bit strength security or 512-bit strength
>> security in SPC-4.
>>
>> If you do not yet know your company's position,
>> now would be a good time to start asking some
>> embarrassing questions.
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> .Ralph
*
* For T10 Reflector information, send a message with
* 'info t10' (no quotes) in the message body to majordomo at t10.org



More information about the T10 mailing list