IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [tcpm] Review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-auth-opt-01

Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU> Mon, 28 July 2008 16:54 UTC

Return-Path: <tcpm-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tcpm-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-tcpm-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0B36B28C205; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:54:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tcpm@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C79B23A6AA8 for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:54:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.477
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.477 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.123, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CI6g3yGJtDpQ for <tcpm@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:54:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vapor.isi.edu (vapor.isi.edu [128.9.64.64]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFE0828C21F for <tcpm@ietf.org>; Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:54:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [130.129.20.69] ([130.129.20.69]) by vapor.isi.edu (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m6SGptLI024929 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:51:58 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <488DF90B.1070803@isi.edu>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:51:23 -0700
From: Joe Touch <touch@ISI.EDU>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Windows/20080708)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Adam Langley <agl@imperialviolet.org>
References: <20080728042451.C7A174B7AD3@kilo.rtfm.com> <488D6968.9010102@isi.edu> <20080728131254.3DD764B88F7@kilo.rtfm.com> <488DD77D.9070608@isi.edu> <20080728144721.AC9184B905A@kilo.rtfm.com> <488DE021.7070307@isi.edu> <396556a20807280931i257c6597o14cf45f8710611bf@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <396556a20807280931i257c6597o14cf45f8710611bf@mail.gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6
X-ISI-4-43-8-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-From: touch@isi.edu
Cc: tcpm@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [tcpm] Review of draft-ietf-tcpm-tcp-auth-opt-01
X-BeenThere: tcpm@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: TCP Maintenance and Minor Extensions Working Group <tcpm.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/tcpm>
List-Post: <mailto:tcpm@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm>, <mailto:tcpm-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Sender: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tcpm-bounces@ietf.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Adam,

Adam Langley wrote:
| On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 8:05 AM, Joe Touch <touch@isi.edu> wrote:
|> | There is no need for a unique per-packet nonce.
|>
|> If so, then why generate fresh keys on rollover?
|
| (This is pretty much a reposting of a previous email, but people still
| seem to be hazy on this point)

Indeed - note that the statement above is from you indicating that there
is no need for a per packet nonce.

| We have a couple of reasons for wanting to define an nonce:

So this indicates you want one Which is it?

Joe
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAkiN+QsACgkQE5f5cImnZrsXlgCdERWisDmYJmDuyyE9ECphenmj
d0MAnjalXgjVYo1kjrPlQZsNdFN4f8qZ
=TbvN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
tcpm mailing list
tcpm@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpm

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email