Re: [Emu] Francesca Palombini's Discuss on draft-ietf-emu-eap-noob-04: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Francesca Palombini <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mohit! 

Thanks for your answer and for addressing my DISCUSS, I will go ahead and remove the block now. All the rest of the comments also look good, however I am not convinced by 7: see my answer below. However this is minor and non-blocking, so I will let you and Roman decide if and how to implement a change.

Thanks,
Francesca

>
>Hi Francesca,
>
>We have submitted a new version ( 
>https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-emu-eap-noob-05 ) which 
>hopefully addresses your comments. Here is the diff for your 
>convenience: 
>https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-emu-eap-noob-05.txt
>
>See our answers below.
>
>--Mohit
>
>On 4/20/21 1:37 AM, Francesca Palombini via Datatracker wrote:
>> Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-emu-eap-noob-04: Discuss
>>

...

>> 7. -----
>>
>>     and truncated to the 16 leftmost bytes of the output.  The message
>>
>> FP: please mention that network byte order is used (either here or in the
>> terminology).
>The byte order is relevant when encoding/decoding things like integers 
>etc. While cryptographic hash functions may use integers or 32- or 
>64-bit words internally, their output is a byte string, and the order of 
>the bytes in that output is defined by each individual hash function 
>specification (e.g. RFC 6234). We don’t think we should say anything 
>that could lead to a programmer mistakenly reordering the bytes in the 
>hash output.

FP: But the fact that you talk about "leftmost" bytes means that you are already implying ordering. Talking about leftmost without talking about ordering seems imprecise. Maybe you want to talk about the 16 most significant bytes instead.