> On 27 Jan 2020, at 05:46, Joseph Salowey wrote:
>
> [Joe] THis is not the only the derivation could be interpreted. The null
> after the label and the inclusion of the length are part of RFC 8295 and not
> the TLS PRF. To fix this errata I think we should define the TLS-PRF to be
> P_
>
>> Could it be that this text refers to RFC 5295:
>>
>> If an inner method supports export of an Extended Master Session Key
>> (EMSK), then the IMSK SHOULD be derived from the EMSK as defined in
>> [*RFC5295*]. The usage label used is "teapbind...@ietf.org", and the
>> length is 64 octets.
On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 5:43 AM Eliot Lear wrote:
> Hi Juoni,
>
> Thanks for taking the time. I suspect this will take a few iterations to
> get the actual text right, as I am drinking water from a fire hose here.
> Please bear with me.
>
> On 24 Nov 2019, at 12:31, Jouni Malinen wrote:
>
> On
Hi Juoni,
Thanks for taking the time. I suspect this will take a few iterations to get
the actual text right, as I am drinking water from a fire hose here. Please
bear with me.
> On 24 Nov 2019, at 12:31, Jouni Malinen wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 05:21:10PM +0800, Eliot Lear wrote:
>
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 05:21:10PM +0800, Eliot Lear wrote:
> I have been reviewing this erratum, and I think it is correct, but I have a
> question:
>
> > Section 5.2. says:
> >
> > IMSK = First 32 octets of TLS-PRF(EMSK, "teapbind...@ietf.org" |
> > "\0" | 64)
> > It should say:
> >
> >
