[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: another padding question ...
At 06:53 PM 5/28/97 -0400, Stephen Kent wrote:
>Folks,
>
> I've reworded the padding field text as per my earlier message, to
>make padding content algorithm/mode specific.
Steve,
If I understand you correctly, by doing this we now require that the RC5
and CAST "shim" drafts have the padding specifics added to them. Here's
what I think is a more graceful alternative. Leave the specification of
padding in the base ESP draft, but add some language that says something
like "each transform specification which specifies the algorithm and other
characteristics of the confidentiality services in conjunction with this
protocol MAY specify a form of padding which differs, and thus overrides,
the specification of padding in this specification". That lets the RC5 and
CAST drafts continue in effect without the need for change, but leaves the
opportunity for algorithm/transform-specific padding requirements.
Hope this isn't too late.
-Bob