[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: response to Last Call on: IP Authentication using Keyed MD5
- To: hugo@watson.ibm.com (H.Krawczyk)
- Subject: Re: response to Last Call on: IP Authentication using Keyed MD5
- From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@imsi.com>
- Date: Wed, 05 Jul 1995 11:20:03 -0400
- Cc: ipsec@ans.net
- In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 30 Jun 1995 17:29:22 EDT." <9506302129.AA36669@copacabana.watson.ibm.com>
- Reply-To: perry@imsi.com
H.Krawczyk writes:
> > It appears that all that is needed to incorporate Hugo's suggestion is
> > a change of a line or two of the MD5 AH draft to specify that the
> > prepended part of the key be padded out with a 1 bit and some number
> > of 0 bits to 512 bits. Am I correct on this, Hugo?
>
> Right, that's the only change to the calculation description.
Bill assures me that it has been inserted in the document, though I
have yet to see the language he has used.
> > Given the simplicity of this change, I'm inclined to see if we can
> > insert it before RFC publication, in spite of the late timing. Again,
> > this depends on what my co-authors say and on general consensus.
>
> I am not sure if draft draft-ietf-ipsec-ah-md5 is needed anymore. The
> mandatory function for implementation can be specified in Atkinson's
> draft-ietf-ipsec-auth by referencing a protocol-independent description of
> the function as done in draft-krawczyk-keyed-md5 or similar document.
Hugo, you are a great cryptographer, but I've read your document and I
don't think it is suitable for an implementer. Bill has effected the
needed change by an alteration of only a sentence or two in the
current draft. I will make sure that you are heavily referenced and,
although I didn't think to do it, I'll put a large pointer to your
work in the security considerations section. I also think that a
modified version of your draft should be made into an informational
RFC, with much cleaned up language explaining the rationale and the
rest -- there is a need for such a document. However, I don't think
its suitable as a replacement for the current document.
> > It would also be nice if Hugo were to post a message explaining the
>
> I hope the message I sent an hour ago will help in this regard.
It did.
Perry