[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Padding

Bill,


>While I'm thinking about it, at least 4 WG members asked that the
>default padding be changed to be well-known, and 2 asked that it be the
>same Self-Describing-Padding that PPP is using.  Yet, Kent's ESP text
>does not reflect the requests.

I'm currently discussing how to resolve the padding issue with those WG
members who have expressed a desire for the default padding to be
enumerated, vs. random, as a result of the recent, co-ordinated discussions
among implementors lead by Bob Moskowitz.  No ESP drafts have been produced
since that suggestion was forwared to me, so your suggestion that I have
refused to make such changes is unfounded.  Moreover, you previously argued
for no definition of a default padding, suggesting that every encryption
algorithm document specify the padding.  The WG has vascillated
considerably about this topic.

>I find Kent's text dense and difficult to understand, without such minor
>editorial devices as a single topic per paragraph and transitional
>sentences.  Also, he misused the latin abbreviations "e.g." and "i.e.".
>Why use them at all, when the spelled out versions are just as many
>typed characters?  This isn't calligraphy.  Better yet, use the English.

I reviewed the most recent ESP spec and could not find examples of misuse
of "e.g." or "i.e."  Please provide pointers to specific instances that you
feel are incorrect.

Steve
Follow-Ups: References: