IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mpls-gach-adv-06

Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com> Fri, 03 May 2013 17:24 UTC

Return-Path: <stbryant@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5396C21F853A for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 May 2013 10:24:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-108 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id DUY9cbkJ2H-g for <gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 May 2013 10:24:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-3.cisco.com (ams-iport-3.cisco.com [144.254.224.146]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C730E21F96F4 for <gen-art@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 May 2013 09:10:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1162; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1367597429; x=1368807029; h=message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Z8a+X9pXJKRxhf2Qnn2f3P5j49SwlYaWKXLVKcFFwYI=; b=ahS22Hx/a247JNh0Mfv9BqnPNdvx1I0PZPwG13PIVD8XpbuBNvmnTyqI e/sjm5JUgsG/NtNLEeTROW7bqEXZvq1cATiUV1gM5U6MMIIEnU3YJF6rR Zaj8RpmwFTp8nMxvxUo7RCn7hDmIjMS6dCV7GUtNCOqAi3MXERrrSnc1s Y=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.87,605,1363132800"; d="scan'208";a="13241135"
Received: from ams-core-4.cisco.com ([144.254.72.77]) by ams-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 May 2013 16:10:12 +0000
Received: from cisco.com (mrwint.cisco.com [64.103.70.36]) by ams-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r43GAATh015710 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 3 May 2013 16:10:10 GMT
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cisco.com (8.14.4+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id r43GA8PQ018281; Fri, 3 May 2013 17:10:08 +0100 (BST)
Message-ID: <5183E160.6020609@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 17:10:08 +0100
From: Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.8; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: stbryant@cisco.com, Adrian Farrel <adrian@olddog.co.uk>
References: <CABkgnnW-53MVHZaW4QweqBjrPGCrP=fCNQ+LJdaG__ePh2tn1A@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnXOcDRkp=6e8aDdhTbk+s=hkR2wCkXoJcWGn8sjrRi2cg@mail.gmail.com> <517ABCF0.2080701@cisco.com> <CABkgnnX7H_y1cV4O+k4OcmB1bqkTB3iu+uvzec6Ura89W-JQSQ@mail.gmail.com> <517B089E.4060901@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <517B089E.4060901@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "Bocci, Matthew (Matthew)" <matthew.bocci@alcatel-lucent.com>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, sec-ads@tools.ietf.org, danfrost@cisco.com, draft-ietf-mpls-gach-adv.all@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-mpls-gach-adv-06
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
Reply-To: stbryant@cisco.com
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 May 2013 17:24:16 -0000

All done

Stewart

On 27/04/2013 00:07, Stewart Bryant wrote:
> On 26/04/2013 19:45, Martin Thomson wrote:
>> On 26 April 2013 10:44, Stewart Bryant <stbryant@cisco.com> wrote:
>>> Section 6.3 now says
>>>
>>> The HMAC proceedure described in [RFC2104] is used to compute the hash.
>> s/proceedure/procedure/
>>
>>> The hash is computed over the entire GAP message as shown in Fig1.
>> What value does the Authentication TLV have when it is input to the 
>> HMAC?
> Sorry missed that - zero - will address in the inevitable next version.
>
> Stewart
>>
>>> The length of the Authentication Data field is always less than or 
>>> equal
>>> to the message digest size of the specific hash function that is being
>>> used, however the implementer needs to consider that although this
>>> decreases the size of the message, it results in a corresponding
>>> reduction in the strength of the assurance provided.
>>> Hash truncation is not RECOMMENDED.
>> This last part could probably be a new paragraph.
>> .
>>
>
>


-- 
For corporate legal information go to:

http://www.cisco.com/web/about/doing_business/legal/cri/index.html

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email