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