On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Johannes Merkle <[email protected]> wrote: > As Warren asked us to check the option of combining both drafts, I'm not sure > if a general vote for one draft is the > best way forward. >
Sure, fair 'nuff. > I would appreciate if all interested parties (incl Tom and David) could > indicate their preference in the following 3 > questions: > > 1. Should the protocols be described > a) as "diff" to the previous protocols like done in > draft-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp, or > b) completely and based on a decription of a generic hmac-based > authentication protocol, as done in draft-hartman? > > 2. Should the protocols be based on complete or truncated HMACs? > > 3. Which (sub)set of protocols (hash function, MAC length) should be selected? > > Johannes These sound like reasonable questions to me -- lets give this a few days to see where things settle (hint: if you have views on this topic, please reply so your views are heard). W > > > David Reid wrote on 29.08.2014 15:36: >>> I would like to see draft-hmac proceed, pretty much as is. >> >> +1 >> >> -David Reid >> >> > > -- I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in the first place. This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of pants. ---maf _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
