Subject: Re: [Ietf-krb-wg] checksum size conflicts

From: Ken Raeburn <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 2009 03:28:31 -0400

This message has sort of been ignored for a little while...

On Feb 15, 2009, at 20:56, <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Regarding checksum size of hmac-sha1-96-aes256 and hmac-sha1-96- 
> aes128,
> both RFCs says different checksum size. RFC3961 says 20 octets, but  
> RFC3962
> says 12 octets. The name implys 12 octets.

Yes, 12 octets is correct.

> IANA also says 20 octets, but refers to RFC3962 (12 octets).
> <http://www.iana.org/assignments/kerberos-parameters/>

In retrospect, the checksum size should probably not even be listed by  
IANA.

> To avoid misunderstanding and mis-implementation, we need to correct
> IANA registry and errata should be published.
> How do you think?

I agree.  I could write up a proposed errata submission for the RFC.   
I'm not sure what the right process is for updating what fields are in  
an IANA registry; an additional RFC seems like overkill.  Unless  
someone knows off the top of their head, I can drop them a note and  
ask...

Ken
_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg