Subject: [MSEC] Comments to draft-ietf-msec-mikey-rsa-r-02.txt

From: "Fries, Steffen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 11:15:15 +0100

Hi,

just some minor comments to draft-ietf-msec-mikey-rsa-r-02.txt before
the LC closes.  

Just my 2 cents:
- in section 2.1, when discussing the two DH approaches, it might be
worth mentioning that DH-HMAC suffers the same limitations as PSK with
respect to scalability
- in section 3.2, first paragraph, there is a "SHOULD/MUST" statement. I
would propose to make it a MUST becaus of the reasonning following that
statement
- in section 3.4.3 (and the IANA considerations section, the CSB-ID type
added to the Type registry should be '3', as '2' has been taken for
TESLA I-Key in draft-ietf-msec-bootstrapping-tesla-03.txt, which is in
RFC editors queue.

The draft is well written from my point of view and provides an
interesting extension to MIKEY.

Regards
	Steffen
_______________________________________________
msec mailing list
[email-masked]
http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/msec

---

From: Lakshminath Dondeti <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 10:24:02 -0800

Hi Steffen,

Many thanks for your review.  Please see inline for some notes:

>worth mentioning that DH-HMAC suffers the same limitations as PSK with

We'll do this.

>would propose to make it a MUST becaus of the reasonning following that

With the qualifier "for the RTP streams it (Initiator) originates," 
MUST makes sense to me.

Dragan, Ping, Francois, any opinions?

>TESLA I-Key in draft-ietf-msec-bootstrapping-tesla-03.txt, which is in

Will do.

>interesting extension to MIKEY.

Many thanks for your comments, Steffen.

best regards,
Lakshminath