Definitely, it works for me;) Cheers, Yuanlong
-----Original Message----- From: Ulrich Windl [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2017 3:24 PM To: Jiangyuanlong; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Subject: Antw: Re: [Ntp] WGLC for draft-ietf-ntp-mac >>> Jiangyuanlong <[email protected]> schrieb am 29.08.2017 um >>> 08:06 in Nachricht <3b0a1bed22cad649a1b3e97be5ddd68bbb599...@dggeml507-mbx.china.huawei.com>: > Hi, I support the publication of this draft, though I have several > suggestions for the texts: > > > 1. “If authentication is implemented, then AES-CMAC as specified in > RFC > 4493 [RFC4493] should be computed…” in Section 3. > This is a requirement, so I think it should use “SHOULD” instead of > “should”. > But if this AES-CMAC is the only authentication mechanism, it is > better to use “MUST”. > > > 2. “We recommend that the MAC key for NTP SHOULD be 128 bits long > AES-128 key…” in Section 3. > To be more formal, maybe it can be rephrased into “It is RECOMMENDED > that > the MAC key for NTP SHOULD be 128 bits long AES-128 key…” Why not: "The MAC key for NTP SHOULD be a 128 bits long AES-128 key…"? [...] Regards, Ulrich _______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
