Re: [Ace] edhoc section 4: N_U/N_V question

2017-02-24 Thread John Mattsson
N_U serves as a session identifier. That is the reason it is bounced back in message_2. Both N_U and N_V is not needed in message_3. In the updated version on Github only a single session identifier is used in message_3 Sent from my Cray-1 > On 24 Feb 2017, at 15:07, Göran Selander wrote: >

Re: [Ace] edhoc section 4: N_U/N_V question

2017-02-24 Thread Göran Selander
Michael, This has already been updated in the latest version on the Github: https://ericssonresearch.github.io/EDHOC/ As I mentioned we will submit to the IETF a new version next week, pending some expected review comments. Göran On 2017-02-24 14:15, "Michael Richardson" wrote: > >N_U, N_V

Re: [Ace] edhoc section 4: N_U/N_V question

2017-02-24 Thread Michael Richardson
N_U, N_V, E_V, Alg_V, Enc(K_VE; ID_V, Sig(V; Mac(K_VM; prot_2)))| | <---+ | message_2 | | | |