[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: what I am proposing re HMAC
Perry E. Metzger writes:
> Just to be clear, what I am proposing on HMAC is this:
> 1) We leave 1828 alone. We do not advance it further but we do not
> "replace" it, meaning new RFCs do NOT "supersede" it in the way a
> replacement would.
I'm against. There are no reasons NOT to "supersede" 1828.
> 2) We publish an RFC as a proposed standard for HMAC.
> 3) We think of the HMAC transform not as a replacement for the
> existing transforms but as a new transform.
Yes, certainly.
> Any key negotiation
> protocols that exist do not replace the meaning of "use the 1828
> transform" with using HMAC -- they think of HMAC as a new
> transform. I do not want the new RFC to "supersede" 1828 as a
> replacement RFC would.
It is a question of what transform will be mandatory and what won't.
HMAC should be the mandatory one, for several good reasons.
> ...........Right now we can fail to advance 1828 as
> part of this process, but in general what we are doing is creating
> NEW transforms, not REPLACING old ones. The new transforms are then
> encouraged to be "must implement".
We are [or should be] making the new transform "must implement" and
the old one - "optional". In my eyes it's either a "replace", or
very close to it. (:-)
--
Regards,
Uri uri@watson.ibm.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
<Disclaimer>
Follow-Ups:
References: