Michael Richardson writes: > Yoav Nir <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Fix PRF_AES128_CBC to PRF_AES128_XCBC and downgrade it from SHOULD+ > >>> to SHOULD. > >> this is the only one which I didn't understand. > > Which one? There's two parts there. > True. > So, the "_CBC" to "_XCBC" is either a typo in the email or in the spec, and:
Yes. The original spec had typo. And the specifications are not exactly consistent with namings. The original (RFC3664) and revised (RFC4434) used name AES-XCBC-PRF-128 for the algorithm, but neither one of them did specific IANA allocations. The IANA Allocation was done in the RFC4306 and it used the name PRF_AES128_XCBC for that algorithm. This is the name that is in the iana registry (http://www.iana.org/assignments/ikev2-parameters/ikev2-parameters.xhtml). The RFC4307 used PRF_AES128_CBC to refer to same algorithm. There is no problem in the interoperability as it also refers to the correct number and has pointer to the correct specification for the algoritm, but I think we should fix this typo while we are revising this document. -- [email protected] _______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
