----- Original Message ----- From: "Johannes Merkle" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Cc: "David Reid" <[email protected]>; "t.petch" <[email protected]>; "Warren Kumari" <[email protected]>; "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, September 01, 2014 1:19 PM > 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. > > 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
as a 'diff', because it is easier to get right (you have to know the base to start with so a 'complete' you keep on having to look back and to try and spot the changes. > 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? truncated (but I do not have the security credentials to back that up mathematically) > > 3. Which (sub)set of protocols (hash function, MAC length) should be selected? I remain content with the results of our discussion earlier in the year - I know of nothing since to require a change Tom Petch > > Johannes > > > David Reid wrote on 29.08.2014 15:36: > >> I would like to see draft-hmac proceed, pretty much as is. > > > > +1 > > > > -David Reid _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
