Subject: Re: [OSPF] OSPF HMAC-SHA Cryptographic Authentication

From: "Bhatia, Manav (Manav)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 09:58:52 +0530

Hi Richard,

> The last argument is:
> 
> > He [The customer] may feel cheated and may not be so happy, 
> when he learns that there was no value add.
> 
> Good. The document can then simply say that there is no security value
> in the choice. This is easy, isn't it?

Works for me!I can add some text to this effect in the Security Considerations if the chairs and ADs find that acceptable.

> 
> Could the WG Chairs please declare consensus and ask the editor to set
> a date to get a new draft to WG LC?

Yes, I think its time we do that! The first version was posted in Jan 2007 and there has been very little change since then. It has been discussed in the WG list and everyone seems to be okay with what we're doing here.

A similar draft in ISIS WG got published as RFC 5310 some time back.

Cheers, Manav

> Richard Graveman

---

From: Acee Lindem <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 19:25:42 -0400

In Minneapolis, Steve Blake presented Ran Atkinson's slides on the  
requirement to extend the HMAC-SHAx calculation to include a sequence  
of Apad bytes equal to the length of the digest (e.g., 20 bytes of  
Apad for HMAC-SHA1). Some of the main arguments were 1) customer  
preference 2) Consistency with ISIS and RIPv2 HMAC-SHAx (yes, I'm  
aware that it is not exactly the same case since OSPF doesn't have  
the HMAC-SHAx digest embedded in OSPF packet). At least in the room,  
the consensus was that this was a good idea. After the meeting, we  
had further discussions on this and I thought we were all ready to  
make the change and incorporate this into the WG document. I recall  
one issue was the number of authors but I believe we can handle that  
off list.

Hence, my read of the WG is that we just go forward with this  
decision rather than continuing with the debate.

Thanks,
Acee

On Apr 15, 2009, at 12:28 AM, Bhatia, Manav (Manav) wrote:

> Works for me!I can add some text to this effect in the Security  
> Considerations if the chairs and ADs find that acceptable.
>
>>
> Yes, I think its time we do that! The first version was posted in  
> Jan 2007 and there has been very little change since then. It has  
> been discussed in the WG list and everyone seems to be okay with  
> what we're doing here.
>