Re: [tcpm] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-tcpm-rfc1948bis-00

[William Allen Simpson <[e-mail]>]

On 1/10/11 2:49 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
> The specification of the PRF needs to be more detailed. I.e., state how the hash is padded, byte order, and what portion of the output you're using (since MD5 hashes are too long).
>
Strongly disagree!

The standard should only be that a PRF is used.  There are no interoperability
requirements.  Moreover, we'd endlessly spin our wheels needlessly arguing about
these insignificant details.

In code I was writing not that long ago, I used part of the hash for the ISN,
and part for the timestamp, and part for the cookie.  There were plenty of
bits to go around.


> This is a general question; we don't want to be spending cycles around the edges if we have bigger fish to fry.
>
Oh humbug.  These are all drafts concerning things we've known need to be
updated for TCP for 15+ years.  Heck, a draft by a WG co-chair is 4 years
old, and still not finished (and I'd place that one at the top).

Kudos to Gont for being willing to do the work -- and dodge the bullets.


>>> 2) the discussion of how this doc changes 1948 needs to be included in
>>> the core of the doc (Sec 2, IMO), and needs to be updated
>>
>> No problem with this -- what do others think?
>>
Change discussions should be nearest the end of the document, not the core.


> I'm concerned about the performance impact of declaring this a SHOULD.
>
I'm not.  We've been using high performance MD5 for such things since the
days of 186s in a cell phone.  I think it should be a MUST!