Yoav Nir <y...@checkpoint.com> wrote:
>>> Fix PRF_AES128_CBC to PRF_AES128_XCBC and downgrade it from SHOULD+
>>> to SHOULD.
>> this is the only one which I didn't understand.
> Which one? There's two parts there.
True.
So, the "_CBC" to "_XCBC" is either a typo in the email or in the spec, and:
> AES-XCBC was supposed to take the world over by storm from the HMAC
> constructions. Except it didn't - everybody still uses HMAC-SHA1, it's
> still considered secure, and those who don't use HMAC-SHA1, use
> GHASH. So we no longer expect this to become a MUST in the future,
> hence the removal of the "+".
Within the IPsec community, I agree that this is the case, thank you for the
explanation.
--
] Never tell me the odds! | ipv6 mesh networks [
] Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works | network architect [
] m...@sandelman.ca http://www.sandelman.ca/ | ruby on rails [
pgpKr24PezTsj.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
