On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 10:57:44AM +1200, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > In my reading of rfc8990 CDDL, an M_FLOOD message with an appended
> > signature would NOT be parsed as an rfc8990 flood-message CDDL name,
> > which in my book means it wouldnot be an rfc8990 flood message. Aka:
> > i do not
On 22-Aug-22 18:56, Toerless Eckert wrote:
On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 04:21:06PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> We would prefer that this doesn't invalidate existing (unsigned) GRASP
> code. That could be done by appending an optional signature to the
On Sat, Aug 20, 2022 at 04:21:06PM -0400, Michael Richardson wrote:
>
> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > We would prefer that this doesn't invalidate existing (unsigned) GRASP
> > code. That could be done by appending an optional signature to the
> > existing M_FLOOD message format. An
Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> We would prefer that this doesn't invalidate existing (unsigned) GRASP
> code. That could be done by appending an optional signature to the
> existing M_FLOOD message format. An alternative is to add a new flood
> format that is signed, but would not be
Hi ANIMA,
Some background on the new discussion:
A few of us have been discussing the need to cryptographically sign
GRASP multicasts (especially M_FLOOD messages) and this has shown
up a gap in RFC8990 (the GRASP spec). We're currently thinking that
this topic will need a draft (or maybe two
