Re: [lamps] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-lamps-ocsp-nonce-04: (with COMMENT)

[Mohit Sahni <[e-mail]>]

Hi Rob,
Apologies for the delay in responding to your email, I just realized that I
have not addressed your comment completely. We choose a 32 byte long random
number as it is a common practice to use a 16 to 32 byte long random number
in many widely used protocols for the same purpose. One such example is the
client random and server random fields in the TLS handshake. I hope I
addressed your concerns about why we choose a 32 byte value for Nonce.

Thanks
Mohit



On Fri, Oct 2, 2020 at 11:08 AM Mohit Sahni <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> Adding LAMPS WG mailer list.
>
> On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:36 AM Salz, Rich <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> As Mohit said, it’s more of a freshness guarantee that the response that
>> came back is replying to the query.  It doesn’t have to be globally unique;
>> it has to be unique for a specific responder, for the time period covered
>> by the validity of the response.
>>
>>
>>
>> As for the term nonce, wow.  There’s already work in gendispatch to look
>> at possibly problematic words, and I hope that this small RFC update
>> doesn’t have to wait for that work to be done.
>>
>