Done.
> On Jun 14, 2015, at 8:57 PM, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
>
> Sure.
>
> On 06/14/2015 02:11 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
>> How about:
>>
>> OLD:
>>The Pad Length field need not exceed 4 octets. However, RFC 4303 and this
>> specification do not
>>prohibit using greater pad lengths.
>>
>> NEW
Sure.
On 06/14/2015 02:11 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
How about:
OLD:
The Pad Length field need not exceed 4 octets. However, RFC 4303 and this
specification do not
prohibit using greater pad lengths.
NEW:
The length of the Padding field need not exceed 4 octets. However, neither
RFC 430
How about:
OLD:
The Pad Length field need not exceed 4 octets. However, RFC 4303 and this
specification do not
prohibit using greater pad lengths.
NEW:
The length of the Padding field need not exceed 4 octets. However, neither
RFC 4303 nor this
specification require using the mini
Quick nit: the sentence "The Pad Length field need not exceed 4 octets"
is a bit confusing, because the Pad Length field is obviously a constant
2 octets. I would suggest "The Padding field's length (and the value of
the Pad Length field) need not exceed 4 octets."
Thanks,
Yaron
On 06
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the IP Security Maintenance and Extensions
Working Group of the IETF.
Title : ChaCha20, Poly1305 and their use in IKE & IPsec
Author : Yoav Nir
