Re: [Netconf] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-netconf-zerotouch-25: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Kent Watsen <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ben,

Regarding this DISCUSS item:

>>(3) Nonce length
>>
>>Section 7.3 describes the nonce leaf:
>>
>>         leaf nonce {
>>           type binary {
>>             length "8..32";
>>
>>There is probably some discussion to be had about the minimum nonce
>>length (not necessarily in the document itself).  Do you have a 
>>pointer handy to previous disucsions or do we need to have it now?
>>(I do see that this is just following RFC 8366, so hopefully this
>>is an easy question.)
>
>
> I sent email to my RFC 8366 co-authors, as they were behind setting
> this min nonce length.  I have yet to hear back from them, but will
> let you know when I do.

I received the following response from one of my RFC 8366 co-authors:

  ===start====
  I think we wanted something that was big enough to have some 
  reasonable entropy.  But, we didn't want to force receivers to
  store too much.

  More than 32-bytes shouldn't be a problem for most receivers, but
  we wouldn't expect them to accommodate kilobytes.  The registrar
  may need to store an index over nonce values for some situations.
  ===stop===

Does this resolve this DISCUSS item?


Kent // coauthor