On Feb 14, 2025, at 4:23 PM, Michael Richardson <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> wrote: > This the second of two messages. > TL;DR> section 5.2 is much changed, but I think you'll have to start again.
I'll take a deeper look at your messages and respond next week. In short, if anyone is confused by the text, it needs updating. I tried to explain reasons before describing "how to" actions. I feel this gives motivation to the actions. Putting things the other way around IMHO leads to questions of "Why the heck are these steps so complicated", followed only later by "oh, they're to work around all kinds of crazy things". There are multiple interoperable TEAP implementations in the wild. At this point, I think the document should reflect shipping code. If that means we later decide to change key derivations and issue TEAPv2, then we can do that. But the most important thing is to document functionality. The downside here is that I've spent significant efforts trying to understand existing deployed functionally. I still don't have a clear picture of what everyone does. The main unknown is the EMSK Compound-MAC. I suspect the answer is that everyone uses the MSK Compound-MAC, and ignores the EMSK Compound-MAC. If so, it needs to be documented. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list -- emu@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to emu-le...@ietf.org
