Suresh,
On Oct 7, 2004, at 20:39, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
Hi Brian and Francis, Thanks for your comments. I have made some changes to the draft to address the issues you raised. Let me know if these changes are OK.
* I have removed all references to MD5 in the document.
I don't think you want to remove all references to MD5. The document just doesn't need to mandate that MD5 be the only hash algorithm.
* I have added a reference to draft-ietf-ipsec-esp-ah-algorithms-02
I don't think we want to do that. This document is supposed to be going from PS to DS. Adding a reference to an I-D will delay publication until all references are RFC's. And if the above draft is Normative, it has to be at the same (DS) level.
* I added the following paragraph about the hash algorithm
"The randomized interface identifier generation algorithm assumes that
the node is capable of running a hash algorithm which is capable of
producing a 128 bit random value. The selected hash algorithm SHOULD
follow the guidelines set forth in [RANDOM] to ensure randomness of
the result. The node MAY use one of the hash algorithms specified in
[IPSECALGO] as these algorithms will be available on every IPv6
compliant node"
See my comment above about Normative references and my initial recommendation to make a reference to 1750 Informative.
Regards, Brian
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
