Hi, Revisiting an issue that was raised a few months ago and is yet to be resolved: RFC 5905 defines an extension field. The RFC states that a MAC must be present when there is an extension field.
Obviously, it would be beneficial for various purposes to allow Extension Fields independent of whether the MAC is present. Some people thought this is a mistake in the spec, and that it should be included in the errata. Others thought that Extension Fields without MAC are something new that needs to be defined in a new document. This was discussed in IETF 81, and then revisited in the ad-hoc meeting in October, but no conclusion was reached. It would be great to hear the opinion of the WG and the chairs about how to proceed with this. Thanks, Tal.
_______________________________________________ TICTOC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tictoc
