Re: AH/ESP Last Call Results

["Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@MIT.EDU>]

   Date: Wed, 29 Oct 1997 18:29:22 -0800
   From: Bob Monsour <rmonsour@hifn.com>

   While not a major issue, this is not quite consistent with the text in the
   Padding definition in section 2.4, where it says:

      If Padding bytes are needed but the encryption algorithm does not
      specify the padding contents, then the following default processing
      MUST be used.  The Padding bytes are initialized with a series of
      (unsigned, 1-byte) integer values.  The first padding byte appended
      to the plaintext is numbered 1, with subsequent padding bytes making
      up a monotonically increasing sequence: 1, 2, 3, ...  When this
      padding scheme is employed, the receiver SHOULD inspect the Padding
      field.

   The inconsistency has to do with the "SHOULD inspect" part; the
   remove/ignore is not the default action. I'd suggest remove the "SHOULD
   INSPECT" and replace with a default of remove/ignore.

Thanks for catching that.  I propose changing the "SHOULD inspect" to
"MAY inspect"; that should make the text consistent.  Comments?

						- Ted

---

References:

• Re: AH/ESP Last Call Results
• From: Bob Monsour <rmonsour@hifn.com>

---

• Prev by Date: RE: draft of the ISAKMP/Oakley draft
• Next by Date: Re: AH/ESP Last Call Results
• Prev by thread: Re: AH/ESP Last Call Results
• Next by thread: Re: AH/ESP Last Call Results
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread