Re: [IPsec] #116: The AUTH payload signature
Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Wed, 25 November 2009 16:22 UTC
Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Original-To: ipsec@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipsec@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BD5C3A6A00 for <ipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:22:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.045, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7a744H2g3jlN for <ipsec@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:22:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from balder-227.proper.com (Balder-227.Proper.COM [192.245.12.227]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 547773A6947 for <ipsec@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:22:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.20.30.158] (75-101-30-90.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [75.101.30.90]) (authenticated bits=0) by balder-227.proper.com (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id nAPGLmO0071300 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 25 Nov 2009 09:21:49 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p06240820c7330a09cc9f@[10.20.30.158]>
In-Reply-To: <19213.6296.58382.691986@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi>
References: <7F9A6D26EB51614FBF9F81C0DA4CFEC801BDA1213EA8@il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com> <7F9A6D26EB51614FBF9F81C0DA4CFEC801BDF88DFFE0@il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com> <19213.6296.58382.691986@fireball.kivinen.iki.fi>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 08:21:46 -0800
To: Tero Kivinen <kivinen@iki.fi>, Yaron Sheffer <yaronf@checkpoint.com>
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Cc: IPsecme WG <ipsec@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [IPsec] #116: The AUTH payload signature
X-BeenThere: ipsec@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of IPsec protocols <ipsec.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipsec>
List-Post: <mailto:ipsec@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec>, <mailto:ipsec-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:22:03 -0000
At 1:44 PM +0200 11/25/09, Tero Kivinen wrote: >Yaron Sheffer writes: >> Tero requested a clarification: I'm proposing to say that the >> certificate's hash algorithm does not determine the AUTH hash >> function (which is the negotiated PRF). Implementations may use the >> certificates received from a given peer as a hint for selecting a >> mutually-understood PRF with that peer. > >That I can accept. They are not unrelated, but certificate's hash >algorithm does not determine AUTH hash algorithm. +1 > > And yes, the last sentence refers to this text: >> >> To promote interoperability, implementations that support this type >> SHOULD support signatures that use SHA-1 as the hash function and >> SHOULD use SHA-1 as the default hash function when generating >> signatures. > >Do you have new proposed text? +1. :-) --Paul Hoffman, Director --VPN Consortium
- [IPsec] #116: The AUTH payload signature Tero Kivinen
- [IPsec] #116: The AUTH payload signature Yaron Sheffer
- Re: [IPsec] #116: The AUTH payload signature Yaron Sheffer
- Re: [IPsec] #116: The AUTH payload signature Tero Kivinen
- Re: [IPsec] #116: The AUTH payload signature Paul Hoffman