Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp-06: Yes
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-opsawg-hmac-sha-2-usm-snmp/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for your work on this draft! It's great to see the improvements in security. This is just a comment and not critical at all… I found this sentence at the bottom of the second bullet of 4.1 a little odd: as opposed to the truncation to 12 octets in HMAC-MD5-96 and HMAC- SHA-96. Since the guideline is to truncate the size in half and have 80 or more bits for a HMAC, you are covered and already cite the appropriate RFCs. Is this there just for history of previous solutions? Or would it be better to just state the guidance so folks understand why you chose the truncation size? You can do nothing with my comment, it's just a question as the text had me curious. And I see that you have included the HMAC truncation guidance in the security considerations section already. _______________________________________________ OPSAWG mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg
