Subject: RE: [Ipsec] Last Call: 'The AES-CMAC-96 Algorithm and its use withIPsec' to Proposed Standard

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:57:02 +0200

Jun Hyuk Song wrote:

> > Overall comment: I'm not quite sure what's the value of having
> > two different specifications (800-38B and draft-songlee-aes-cmac)
> > for the same algorithm, especially since they don't contain the
> > same text, use different notations for describing the algorithm,
> > etc.  I'd suggest just having a reference to the NIST spec, and
> > save effort for everyone...
> 
> You are comment to  darft-songlee-aes-cmac right?
> 
> The purpose of this document is as we stated in abstract; "to make
> the AES-CMAC algorithm conveniently available to the Internet
> Community" Unlike NIST-80038B, draft-songlee-aes-cmac specifically
> describes for CMAC over AES-128 with test code and test vector.

I was just puzzled why you think that the NIST specs are not
"conveniently available" (I think they are nowadays -- perhaps the
situation was different earlier) and why extra work by yourself, 
your co-authors, the IESG, the RFC editor, etc. is needed.

Besides, the test vectors are the same as in 800-38B, and I'm not
quite convinced that the test code is useful (most of it is
standard AES code, and it's not even clear under which terms
the code is licensed.)

Best regards,
Pasi

_______________________________________________
Ipsec mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec