RE: WG Last Call:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt
FRousseau@chrysalis-its.com Wed, 07 March 2001 19:37 UTC
Received: from above.proper.com (above.proper.com [208.184.76.39]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id OAA19385 for <smime-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 14:37:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id LAA12194 for ietf-smime-bks; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 11:15:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kodiak.chrysalis-its.com ([206.47.125.131]) by above.proper.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA12183 for <ietf-smime@imc.org>; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 11:15:16 -0800 (PST)
From: FRousseau@chrysalis-its.com
Received: by kodiak.chrysalis-its.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) id <GFG7LD7W>; Wed, 7 Mar 2001 14:15:14 -0500
Message-ID: <918C70B01822D411A87400B0D0204DFF72F642@panda.chrysalis-its.com>
To: WWhyte@baltimore.com
Cc: ietf-smime@imc.org, housley@spyrus.com, stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie
Subject: RE: WG Last Call:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001 14:15:15 -0500
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21)
Sender: owner-ietf-smime@mail.imc.org
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://www.imc.org/ietf-smime/mail-archive/>
List-ID: <ietf-smime.imc.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-smime-request@imc.org?body=unsubscribe>
Hi William, I also prefer the Key Derivation Function from ANSI X9.63 and I just remembered that it is also described in Section 3.6.1 of the SECG SEC1 standard, which is freely available from the SECG web site: http://www.secg.org/secg_docs.htm Therefore it could be referred and used by this Internet Draft. Cheers, Francois ___________________________________ Francois Rousseau Director of Standards and Conformance Chrysalis-ITS One Chrysalis Way Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA, K2G 6P9 frousseau@chrysalis-its.com Tel. (613) 723-5076 ext. 3419 http://www.chrysalis-its.com Fax. (613) 723-5078 -----Original Message----- From: William Whyte [mailto:WWhyte@baltimore.com] Sent: Monday, February 19, 2001 04:58 To: Russ Housley; stephen.farrell@baltimore.ie Cc: ietf-smime@imc.org Subject: RE: WG Last Call:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt > >William suggests byte reversal instead, which seems ok from both perspectives. > > Okay. So, since bitwise-NOT and bit-reversal both have shortcomings, what > are you going to use as the mandatory to implement transform? As Stephen says, I've suggested byte reversal. In fact, what I would most like to see as the mandatory to implement transform is X9.63 key derivation (the key derivation function referred to as KDF2 in IEEE P1363a), but to the best of my knowledge there's no stable, freely-available description of this that we could reference. If anyone fancied writing it up as an RFC that'd be very nice... (I have to say I'm uncomfortable with the hacky use of PKCS#5 here. But at least PKCS#5 is referenceable). Cheers, William
- WG Last Call:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt Russ Housley
- Re: WG Last Call:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt Russ Housley
- Re: WG Last Call:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt Stephen Farrell
- Re: WG Last Call:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt Russ Housley
- RE: WG Last Call:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt William Whyte
- Re: WG Last Call:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt Stephen Farrell
- RE: WG Last Call:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt Russ Housley
- RE: WG Last Call:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt Paul Lambert
- Re: WG Last Call:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt Eric Rescorla
- Re: WG Last Call:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt Tolga Acar
- Re: WG Last Call:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt Stephen Farrell
- RE: WG Last Call:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt Jim Schaad
- Re: WG Last Call:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt Stephen Farrell
- RE: WG Last Call:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt Jim Schaad
- Re: WG Last Call:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt Stephen Farrell
- RE: WG Last Call:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt FRousseau
- RE: WG Last Call:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt Simon Blake-Wilson
- RE: WG Last Call:draft-ietf-smime-rcek-01.txt Magnus Nystrom