I had a peek at the diff and it's all good from my POV. Isn't it amazing how you can look at a document for ages and ages and not just see stuff like the hkdf thing? I do it all the time;-(
S. On 04/12/15 21:53, Markus Stenberg wrote: >> On 4.12.2015, at 18.51, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote: >> Thanks for addressing my discuss about the options for >> using DTLS. Sorry for being slow with this ballot update. >> >> The comments below are old, I didn't check if you've >> made related changes. Happy to chat about that if you >> want, (or not if you prefer not:-) >> >> - I agree with Kathleen's discuss that the implementation >> requirements for DTLS need to be clarified, hopefully (from my >> POV) to make that MTI but I'll leave that discussion to the >> other thread. > > We did some text clarification on this I believe in -10. > >> -Section 9: You should refer to HKDF and not HMAC-SHA256 though >> the reference to RFC 6234 is still right. HMAC-SHA256 itself >> is not a key derivation function, which is what you want here. > > Fixed in -10 (really sad failure on my part :-p) > >> - Please take a look at the secdir review [1] and respond to >> that as it raises one issue not (I think) otherwise mentioned. >> What is the effect (on a home) of one compromised hncp router? >> Perhaps you'll say that's obvious, or perhaps not, but I'm >> interested in what you do say, in case it's not obvious:-) > > There's text about that in the security considerations, I believe. (Pointer > in the -09 DISCUSS thread IIRC). > > Cheers, > > -Markus > _______________________________________________ > homenet mailing list > homenet@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet > _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list homenet@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
