Re: [Pals] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-stp-04: (with COMMENT)

Hi Stephen,

We haven't heard from you. Could you confirm whether the explanation is acceptable?

Thanks,
Mingui

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pals [mailto:pals-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Mingui Zhang
> Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 9:32 AM
> To: Stephen Farrell; The IESG
> Cc: pals-chairs@ietf.org; agmalis@gmail.com; pals@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Pals] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-stp-04:
> (with COMMENT)
> 
> Hi Stephen,
> 
> Yes, it assumes a certainly length.
> I think this issue is similar as the EUI-64 issue: currently, the document
> assumes a traditional 48-bit MAC addresses are used, which is in consistence
> with RFC 7275.
> 
> When I compared 802.1q-2005 and 802.1q-2014. I found all references related
> to 802.1q in the document are not changed. If such kind of changes do happen
> in the future, they could be and should be handled in the next protocol version
> of the STP-ICCP application, I think.
> 
> Does it make sense?
> 
> Thanks,
> Mingui
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stephen Farrell [mailto:stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie]
> > Sent: Friday, October 09, 2015 6:09 PM
> > To: Mingui Zhang; The IESG
> > Cc: pals-chairs@ietf.org; agmalis@gmail.com; pals@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [Pals] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on
> draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-stp-04:
> > (with COMMENT)
> >
> >
> >
> > On 09/10/15 03:54, Mingui Zhang wrote:
> > > Hi Stephen,
> > >
> > > 802.1q uses hmac-md5. This still holds in the latest version of
> > > 802.1q.
> > >
> > > I agree that sha256 could be used to enhance the security. However,
> > > I think that kind of enhancement is out the scope of this document
> > > and should be discussed in 802.1q.
> >
> > Of course. But if they do that, and make a change what is the impact
> > here is my question. (I didn't re-read the doc, but was this one where
> > it assumes a certainly length or something?)
> >
> > S
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks, Mingui
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message----- From: Pals
> > >> [mailto:pals-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell Sent:
> > >> Wednesday, September 30, 2015 9:10 PM To: The IESG Cc:
> > >> pals-chairs@ietf.org; agmalis@gmail.com; pals@ietf.org Subject:
> > >> [Pals] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on
> > >> draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-stp-04: (with COMMENT)
> > >>
> > >> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
> > >> draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-stp-04: No Objection
> > >>
> > >> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to
> > >> all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to
> > >> cut this introductory paragraph, however.)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Please refer to
> > >> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more
> > >> information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found
> > >> here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pwe3-iccp-stp/
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> --
> > >> -
> > >>
> > >>
> > COMMENT:
> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >> --
> > >> -
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > - 3.3.5: is that a hard-coded sha1 or md5? if so, why is that ok? what
> > if 802.1q
> > >> is fixed/improved e.g. to use sha256?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________ Pals mailing list
> > >> Pals@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals
> _______________________________________________
> Pals mailing list
> Pals@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pals