Hi Francis, On 06/25/2014 04:24 AM, Francis Dupont wrote: > Suresh Krishnan writes: > >> Summary: This draft is almost ready for publication as a Proposed >> Standard but I have a comment you might wish to address. >> * Section 2 >> >> The Encode_96 function mentions that the output is obtained by >> "extracting the middle 96-bit long bitstring" from the argument. This >> seems to be in conflict with Appendix E of RFC5201bis where the HIT suite >> 3 recommends truncation of the hash to 96 bits. Shouldn't this just be a >> truncation function? > => Encode_96 is a truncation function because it takes a continuous > part of the input, or with other words truncated allows to truncate > one at one end, or twice. I agree it is not the usual/default truncation > function which takes the first bits. So IMHO there is no conflict, > even one can argue RFC5201bis is not enough accurate. (*)
Great. Thanks for the clarification. Glad this issue in RFC5201bis is identified now :-). I brought up the comment because extracting bits from the middle of the input was not exactly my first instinctive choice when I read "truncated to 96 bits" in RFC5201bis. Thanks Suresh _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
