drop duplicate advanced section

This commit is contained in:
Heiko Schaefer 2023-12-10 23:26:29 +01:00
parent 6c75a328c9
commit f1f8e6be43
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG key ID: DAE9A9050FCCF1EB

View file

@ -165,15 +165,6 @@ In this scenario, it is important that the sender encrypts the message to all av
Each implementation should define a "minimum" level of security when it comes to algorithms and key lengths. Each implementation should define a "minimum" level of security when it comes to algorithms and key lengths.
If the lowest common denominator of symmetric encryption algorithms preferred by a set of recipients provides too little security, the implementation should either use a configured fallback algorithm instead, or fail to produce a message at all. If the lowest common denominator of symmetric encryption algorithms preferred by a set of recipients provides too little security, the implementation should either use a configured fallback algorithm instead, or fail to produce a message at all.
### Implications of how a recipient cert is "addressed" (fingerprint/key-ID vs. user-ID) (preferences, expiration, revocation)
```{admonition} TODO
:class: warning
This has been described elsewhere already.
See 9.7.3
```
### AEAD modes in v2 SEIPD: GCM ### AEAD modes in v2 SEIPD: GCM
```{admonition} TODO ```{admonition} TODO