Re: Unbreakable Encryption ? Scenarios - What encryption method would be best?

From: Bill Unruh (unruh_at_string.physics.ubc.ca)
Date: 03/18/04 

Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 17:02:45 +0000 (UTC)

"David Eather" <eather@tpg.com.au> writes:

]Good grief I am posting about grammar

Yes.

]>
]> >AES and the improved version Camellia are stronger with a keysize of
]>
]> In what universe is Camellia an enhancement of
]> AES?

]"AES and the improved version Camellia" does not say or imply that Camellia
]is an improved version of AES. It identifies two algorithms "AES" and the
]"improved version Camellia" as opposed to the first specification of
]"Camellia". No ancestry is implied or stated. It is in error or simply
]argumentative to imply it is.

It should then have read "the improved version of Camellia" Yours looks
like there should be a comma after version-- which would mean that
Camellia is an improved version of AES. Ie, this is a case of ambiguous
referent for the word version.

]Flame makes good burgers, but is perhaps best left at that.
Grammer makes good communication.

Relevant Pages