Re: [Hipsec] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-19: (with COMMENT)

On Tue, Jan 8, 2019 at 9:50 AM Tom Henderson wrote: > On 1/8/19 5:57 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > The second preimage attack resistance is 96 bits, plus whatever work > > is needed to generate the keys. > > > > I agree that this is in RFC 7343, but it doesn't seem to be stated > >

Re: [Hipsec] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-19: (with COMMENT)

> On Jan 6, 2019, at 2:40 PM, Miika Komu wrote: > >> >> Abstract: The abstract manages to completely avoid saying what this namespace >> is _for_. (Yes, I realize that is old text :-) ) > > I changed the first sentence to: > >This memo describes the Host Identity (HI) namespace, that

Re: [Hipsec] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-19: (with COMMENT)

Hi Eric, (some other questions still remain to be discussed besides the second preimage collision issue) On 11/21/18 21:37, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 12:07 PM Miika Komu > wrote: > > Hi Eric, > > On 5/7/18 00:41, Eric Rescorla wrote:

Re: [Hipsec] Eric Rescorla's No Objection on draft-ietf-hip-rfc4423-bis-19: (with COMMENT)

On Mon, Jan 7, 2019 at 9:58 PM Tom Henderson wrote: > Eric, Miika asked me to share some off-list discussion we had on your > questions about second preimage attacks in HIP (inline below, trimming to > the relevant parts). > > - Tom > > On 11/21/18 11:37 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > > On Tue,