Subject: RE: DH key -> symmetric key proposal 2

From: "Paul Leach" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 13:59:35 -0700

Works for me, too. 

As an aside, I'm not sure that the reference to 4.5 of RFC 3766 helps a
lot: it really doesn't say any more than that the hash has to be
cryptographically strong, too.

I think if we'd said that the hash was cryptographically strong and its
strength was the same as its output size, then we'd be OK. (Leaving in
the reference to 3766.)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Liqiang(Larry) Zhu
> Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 4:42 PM
> To: 'Sam Hartman'
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Paul Leach
> Subject: RE: DH key -> symmetric key proposal 2
> 
> Sam Hartman wrote:
> > I actually recommend that you say something like h must be a
> cryptographically strong hash suitable for use
> > by section 4.5 of RFC 3766.
>

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 17:22:36 -0400

>>>>> "Paul" == Paul Leach <[email-masked]> writes:

    Paul> Works for me, too.  As an aside, I'm not sure that the
    Paul> reference to 4.5 of RFC 3766 helps a lot: it really doesn't
    Paul> say any more than that the hash has to be cryptographically
    Paul> strong, too.

Agreed. RFC 3766 does not impress me on a number of fronts.  It does
happen to be a BCP though.