RE: Comments on draft-ietf-bfd-hmac-sha

["Nobo Akiya (nobo)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Manav,

Ah I see, thanks for clarification!

-Nobo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bhatia, Manav (Manav) [mailto:[e-mail]]
> Sent: Monday, April 14, 2014 10:59 PM
> To: Nobo Akiya (nobo); [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: RE: Comments on draft-ietf-bfd-hmac-sha
> 
> Hi Nobo,
> 
> Thanks for the review. We'll be addressing them all in the next revision.
> 
> One quick comment.
> 
> It's a standard track document because vendors have to implement the
> crypto-mathematics given in this document down to the last dot (if there
> ever was such a phrase) to come up with an interoperable implementation.
> 
> The crypto-maths here includes the notion of an Additional Pad (Apad)
> which increases the security, and isnt defined in the regular NIST
> documents that we refer to in this draft. How it increases the security is a
> long painful discussion best done in a pub when everything around is us
> already fuzzy and blurred.
> 
> Cheers, Manav
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rtg-bfd [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Nobo
> > Akiya
> > (nobo)
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2014 3:51 AM
> > To: [e-mail]
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Subject: Comments on draft-ietf-bfd-hmac-sha
> >
> > Hi Authors,
> >
> > I have reviewed your draft (draft-ietf-bfd-hmac-sha), comments below.
> > Since document is nearing expiration, perhaps you can address some of
> > these comments and re-publish?
> >
> >
> > (1) Section 3, couple of places
> >
> > s/avaliable/available/g
> >
> >
> > (2) Section 2, 3, 4
> >
> > I see that most texts from sections 3 & 4 overlaps with texts in
> > draft- ietf-bfd-generic-crypto-auth. Are texts in section 2 something
> > required for BFD to use HMAC-SHA (i.e. required to interop)?  I'm just
> > wondering why this is a standard-track document, i.e. with
> > draft-ietf-bfd- generic-crypto-auth available, whether or not we need
> > to write standard-track draft for every authentication that BFD need
> > to use going forward. Maybe I over-looked something ...
> >
> >
> > (3) Section 2
> >
> > Missing '.' chars.
> >
> > [old]
> >    B is the block size of H, measured in octets rather than bits.  Note
> >    that B is the internal block size, not the hash size.  For SHA-1 and
> >    SHA-256: B == 64 For SHA-384 and SHA-512: B == 128 L is the length
> > of
> >    the hash, measured in octets rather than bits.
> > [new]
> >    B is the block size of H, measured in octets rather than bits.  Note
> >    that B is the internal block size, not the hash size.  For SHA-1 and
> >    SHA-256: B == 64. For SHA-384 and SHA-512: B == 128. L is the length
> >    of the hash, measured in octets rather than bits.
> > [snip]
> >
> >
> > -Nobo