At 03:16 AM 7/17/2006, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
Hi Lakshminath,
this would make the design more difficult.
There is almost no performance penality of having two MACs.
I disagree in this case. Unless there is a strong need to have
separate MAC protection for the Protected data payload, I think the
second MAC is spurious and comes only as a side effect of the use of
a combined mode algorithm. Surely that's not a justification for
adding 96 or so bits to the GPSK messages.
Lakshminath
Ciao
Hannes
Lakshminath Dondeti wrote:
My reading of the GPSK draft is that the Protected Payload data
will be integrity protected using the MAC from the combined mode
and there is the integrity checksum over the entire
GPSK-Message. I think we should avoid the multiple MACs.
Thoughts?
regards,
Lakshminath
_______________________________________________
Emu mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
_______________________________________________
Emu mailing list
[email protected]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
