Re: IEEE 1619.1 draft 4 (tape) Comments and feedback

2006-03-12 Thread james hughes
On Mar 8, 2006, at 3:47 PM, Matt Ball wrote: Propose that bullet 3 in section 4.1 be reworded to: 4.1=20 "Plaintext P shall have a length from 1 to 2^36-32 bytes". I removed the 'record' language from this statement. (Again, if we're supported 'authenticate-only', we need to support =20

RE: IEEE 1619.1 draft 4 (tape) Comments and feedback

2006-03-08 Thread Doug Whiting
Title: RE: IEEE 1619.1 draft 4 (tape) Comments and feedback Ok, I see. Yes, I was wrong in my previous email. The length is indeed a byte count, not a block count. It has been a few years since I looked at CCM in detail!   I think that you understand it correctly. So we are in fact

RE: IEEE 1619.1 draft 4 (tape) Comments and feedback

2006-03-08 Thread Matt Ball
may not be allowed. Thanks! -Matt > -Original Message- > From: Doug Whiting [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 5:14 PM > To: Matt Ball; james hughes > Cc: Garry McCracken; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: IEEE 1619.1 draft 4 (tape) Comments and feedback >

RE: IEEE 1619.1 draft 4 (tape) Comments and feedback

2006-03-08 Thread Doug Whiting
application, L=3 is probably about right. Does this help? > -Original Message- > From: Matt Ball [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2006 3:48 PM > To: james hughes > Cc: Garry McCracken; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Doug Whiting > Subject: RE: IEEE 1619.

RE: IEEE 1619.1 draft 4 (tape) Comments and feedback

2006-03-08 Thread Matt Ball
(Doug Whiting, there's a CCM question for you below...) Hi Jim, See comments below: > >> Propose that bullet 3 in section 3.1 be reworded to: 3.1 > "Plaintext P > >> shall have a length from 1 to 2^24" > > > > It might be better to not impose any limit, but rather let the > > particular > > a

RE: IEEE 1619.1 draft 4 (tape) Comments and feedback

2006-03-08 Thread Garry McCracken
. Garry -Original Message- From: Matt Ball [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 6:12 PM To: Garry McCracken; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: IEEE 1619.1 draft 4 (tape) Comments and feedback Hi Garry, I've got a couple comments for the suggested changes you sent out ea

RE: IEEE 1619.1 draft 4 (tape) Comments and feedback

2006-03-08 Thread Matt Ball
the spec as well. -Matt -Original Message- From: Glen Jaquette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 6:47 PM To: Matt Ball Cc: stds-p1619@LISTSERV.IEEE.ORG Subject: RE: IEEE 1619.1 draft 4 (tape) Comments and feedback Matt, You wrote: DriveKey = SHA-256(0x01 || 0x

Re: IEEE 1619.1 draft 4 (tape) Comments and feedback

2006-03-08 Thread james hughes
On Mar 7, 2006, at 6:11 PM, Matt Ball wrote: Propose that bullet 3 in section 3.1 be reworded to: 3.1 "Plaintext P shall have a length from 1 to 2^24" It might be better to not impose any limit, but rather let the particular application define a limit. 16 MB is a customary limit in SCSI ta

RE: IEEE 1619.1 draft 4 (tape) Comments and feedback

2006-03-07 Thread Glen Jaquette
ken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cc Subject RE: IEEE 1619.1 draft 4 (tape) Comments and feedback (Please read this message carefully, because it might change or break current implementations...) Thanks Garry for following up! Is there anything else that

RE: IEEE 1619.1 draft 4 (tape) Comments and feedback

2006-03-07 Thread Matt Ball
Hi Garry, I've got a couple comments for the suggested changes you sent out earlier: > All, below are some comments and feedback on IEEE 1619.1 > draft 4 (tape): > > Encryption blocks need not correspond to media records: > The standard should not constrain the location or technology used for >

RE: IEEE 1619.1 draft 4 (tape) Comments and feedback

2006-03-06 Thread Landon Noll
> Is there anything else that we should change in the latest > 1619.1 document? > I'll go ahead and add these changes in, then add the new > stuff, including the following: > > - Method for key derivation using SP800-90 DEC 2005 draft. > - Requirements of entropy in IV if key derivation is not

RE: IEEE 1619.1 draft 4 (tape) Comments and feedback

2006-03-03 Thread Matt Ball
(Please read this message carefully, because it might change or break current implementations...) Thanks Garry for following up! Is there anything else that we should change in the latest 1619.1 document? I'll go ahead and add these changes in, then add the new stuff, including the following: