Hi Tero, Thanks for the comments. Please find below how I updated the text on my local copy and let me know if that addresses your concerns.
Yours, Daniel On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 3:26 PM Tero Kivinen <kivi...@iki.fi> wrote: > Daniel Migault writes: > > value SN needs to be considered instead. Note that the limit of > > messages being sent is primary determined by the security associated > > to the key rather than the SN. The security of the key used to > > encrypt decreases with the each message being sent and a node MUST > > ensure the limit is not reached - even though the SN would permit it. > > In a constrained environment, it is likely that the implementation of > a > > rekey mechanism is preferred over the use of ESN. > > No. The security of the key does not decrease, but the ability for the > attacker to attack the key might incrase, and the value of attacking > that one key also increases when more data is encrypted with it. Also > with short block length algorithms there were stricter limits of data > that can be encrypted with one key. > <mglt> Thanks. Here is the text I propose. The security of all data protected under a given key decreases slightly with each message and a node MUST ensure the limit is not reached - even though the SN would permit it. </mglt> > -- > kivi...@iki.fi > -- Daniel Migault Ericsson
_______________________________________________ IPsec mailing list IPsec@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipsec
