Subject: Re: CONSENSUS CALL: PRF

From: Love <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 11:12:21 +0200

Ken Raeburn <[email-masked]> writes:

> Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]> writes:
>> So I'm asking folks to indicate support for or opposition to this change.
>> The complete change is described in Sam's original message dated
>> 26-Jun-2004, with the exception of a specific value for the
>> "prfconstant" used there.  I assume he'll propose such a value shortly.
>
> I'd like to indicate my support for the change, and I'll propose the
> string "prf".  I've run a quick check, and for several output lengths,
> n-fold of "prf" does not collide with the n-fold output of "kerberos"
> (used in 3des string-to-key) or the values used by the simplified
> profile for the first 160K key usage values.

I also support this change.

Love

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 19:36:32 -0400

On Tuesday, September 07, 2004 11:12:21 +0200 Love <[email-masked]> 
wrote:

>>> So I'm asking folks to indicate support for or opposition to this
>>> change. The complete change is described in Sam's original message dated

OK; besides the few that have commented on this on the list, I've also 
received a couple of private replies supporting this change.  I have not 
received a single objection.  Between that, and the poll which was taken 
during the San Diego meeting, I believe that it is indeed the concensus of 
the Kerberos Working Group to adopt this change.

-- Jeffrey T. Hutzelman (N3NHS) <[email-masked]>
   Co-chair, IETF Kerberos Working Group
   Carnegie Mellon University - Pittsburgh, PA