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

From: "Liqiang(Larry) Zhu" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2004 13:41:36 -0700

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.

This works for me.  Paul and I believed it was implied by the words
"cryptographically strong" that the output of hash h() would not have
structures; therefore we removed the sentence we had about structures in
the hash output.

Brian, if you have not submitted the next version, please adjust the
proposal accordingly. 

-- larry

-----Original Message-----
From: Sam Hartman [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2004 9:26 AM
To: Liqiang(Larry) Zhu
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; Paul Leach
Subject: Re: DH key -> symmetric key proposal 2

I'm happy with this proposal.  I suspect you probably are not if you
think it through though.  Saying that h is a cryptographically strong
hash says very little about whetherh has structure.

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.