Re: about draft-bagnulo-multi6dt-hba-00.txt
marcelo bagnulo braun <[email protected]> Thu, 28 Oct 2004 19:22:13 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.multi6 |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <E8B58D71-2905-11D9-AB06-000D93ACD0FE@it> |
Hi Francis, El 28/10/2004, a las 18:45, Francis Dupont escribió: > I like the idea thanks, > but the I-D is hard to read by itself, i.e., the send-cga > I-D is needed to understand things... But this is more a problem about > the organization of the document. > agree, and i apologize for this. I think that the outcome is more focused in the specification of the mechanisms rather than in the rationale, which is what it should be presented at this stage. I think that an appendix with an example would help to clearify. I will try to add this. > But section 4 is incomplete: > "2. Modifier generation. Generate a Modifier as a random or > pseudorandom 128-bit value. If a public key has not been > provided > as an input, generate the Extended Modifier as a 384-bit random > or > pseudorandom value. Format the Extended Modifier as a > DER-encoded > ASN.1 structure of the type SubjectPublicKeyInfo defined in the > Internet X.509 certificate profile [3]." > this is underspecified (RSA must be specified) and not clear enough: > IMHO the idea is to get a 384 bit random value and to encode it as > a RSA key in a SubjectPublicKeyInfo DER value. yes > But there is at least > another interpretation... BTW the encoding gives only a static (i.e., > easy to precompute : 0x 30 42 30 0D 06 09 2A 86 48 86 F7 0D 01 01 01 > 05 00 > 03 31 00 <48 octets> but please check :-) prefix. > ok, i will try to clearify this > Finally I am not convinced a type tag is not required for HBA CGAs, > i.e., > today HBA CGAs are not more usable than CGAs... > i am not following this, could you expand a bit? > Thanks > > [email protected] > > PS: I have an OpenSSL module for CGAs (with new/free/dup/d2i/i2d and > check/sign/verify). I can send it to who'd like to extend it to HBA > (I'm using the standard BSD licence). It should be easy because if I've > understood the design the multi-prefix extension is an extension field? > Great! we are planning to implement HBA, so this would be really helpful. I will contact you later. Thanks, marcelo > ------------------------------------------ Please note that my former email address [email protected] is no longer in use Please send mail to: marcelo at it dot uc3m dot es ------------------------------------------