* Florent Daignière <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-30 08:43:49]:
> * Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2007-09-29 22:05:06]:
>
> > I don't understand message 2. We send g^i in message 1, and then we don't
> > send
> > it back in message 2, we wait for it to be resent in message 3. Is it
> > possible that this is a mistake in the spec PDF? The internet-draft version
> > of the spec has it a little differently:
> >
> > Message 2, R->I: Ni, Nr, g^r, GRPINFOr, IDr,
> > SIG{r}(g^r), HMAC{HKr}(Ni, Nr, g^i, g^r)
> >
> > JFK pdf: http://people.csail.mit.edu/canetti/materials/jfk.pdf
> > JFK internet-draft: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-ipsec-jfk-00
> >
>
> I've used an other version... of the same draft :
> Message 2, R->I: Ni, Nr, g^r, GRPINFOr, IDr,
> SIG{r}(g^r, GRPINFOr), HMAC{HKr}(g^r, Nr, Ni, IPi)
>
> > AFAICS it is important that the initiator commit to a specific g^i at the
> > beginning, no? And we don't store it, so we have to send it back, and
> > include
> > it in the authenticator?
> >
>
> The version of the paper I have doesn't do it ... but it sounds like a
> good idea to put it in the authenticator.As of r15416 it's done
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
