Tero Kivinen <[email protected]> wrote: > Pascal Thubert (pthubert) writes: >> Do you have an intention to add text like this in a draft or in annex >> of a draft?
> I think it will be enough for our IETF drafts to just say:
> Implementations MUST use different L2 keys when using different MIC
> lengths, as using same key with different MIC lengths might be unsafe
> (i.e., using same key for both MIC-32 and MIC-64). See IEEE 802.15.4
> Annex B.4.3 for more information.
This seems like it isn't a problem.
It would apply to network-wide keying only.
While I guess we could include multiple Link_Layer_Key with the same
key_id, and a different key_usage, that wasn't the intention. I
guess one could use a different K1 and K2 with a different MIC length, but
have no idea why a network would want to mix MIC-32 and MIC-64.
I imagine that there performance or power tradeoffs to using the longer MIC
lengths, other than there are more check bytes?
--
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ 6tisch mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6tisch
