Simon: Thanks for the review. Good catch on both. We will fix both of them.
On 9/25/12 2:02 PM, "Simon Josefsson" <si...@josefsson.org> wrote: >Alan DeKok <al...@deployingradius.com> writes: > >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-emu-eap-tunnel-method/ > >Section 5.3: > > The Compound MAC computation is as follows: > > CMK = CMK[j] > Compound-MAC = HMAC-HASH( CMK, BUFFER ) > > where j is the number of the last successfully executed inner EAP > method, HASH is the default hash function or the alternative hash > function negotiated in TLS 1.2 [RFC5246], and BUFFER is created after > concatenating these fields in the following order: > >TLS may negotiate MACs that are not based on HMAC. Am I missing some >context here, or should this really be something like: > > The Compound MAC computation is as follows: > > CMK = CMK[j] > Compound-MAC = MAC( CMK, BUFFER ) > > where j is the number of the last successfully executed inner EAP > method, MAC is the MAC function negotiated via TLS 1.2 [RFC5246], and > BUFFER is created after concatenating these fields in the following > order: > >Section 5.1: > > derivation is "teap seesion key seed". The length of the session key > >Is this typo intentional? I see it repeated in the IANA considerations >as well. > >/Simon >_______________________________________________ >Emu mailing list >Emu@ietf.org >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
