> >> > >> The new protocol is a straightforward adaptation of the protocols > >> HMAC-MD5-96 and HMAC-SHA-96 from RFC 3414 to the SHA-256 based HMAC > >> with truncation to 128 bits. Comments and suggestions are welcome. > > > > Would it be valuable to also add SHA-512? > > > > We actually implemented all 4 bit lengths of SHA2. I think that's overkill. > > But 512 might be valuable. > > > > HMAC-SHA-256-128 already provides a very high level of security. So > I'm not sure if a SHA-512-based HMAC is really needed.
That's fine with me. I have not specifically seen demand for 512, but wasn't sure what the broader market would want. > > The next thing I'm going to do is to write down the MIB spec. As soon > as I find time for it... OK. I'll be happy to review it when it's ready. -David Reid _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
