Hi,
I was going through the draft and i have a doubt.
Section 8.1 of the draft describes the ESP-NULL packet format. While
doing so, it also shows the IV as optional. Now, my question is, that
isnt IV for NULL encryption (integrity only) always 0? If thats the
case then why are we showing the IV
Venkatesh Sriram writes:
> Section 8.1 of the draft describes the ESP-NULL packet format. While
> doing so, it also shows the IV as optional. Now, my question is, that
> isnt IV for NULL encryption (integrity only) always 0?
No. In most cases the IV length is 0, but there is AUTH_AES_*_GMAC
authen
I've followed up to the revised Camellia CMAC for IPsec draft,
draft-kato-ipsec-camellia-cmac96and128-05.
Thanks to the authors for their efforts and cooperation.
I once more read the entire document, but did not verify the
test cases. All my previous textual concerns have been addressed
tho
Thanks Tero.
>> Section 8.1 of the draft describes the ESP-NULL packet format. While
>> doing so, it also shows the IV as optional. Now, my question is, that
>> isnt IV for NULL encryption (integrity only) always 0?
>
> No. In most cases the IV length is 0, but there is AUTH_AES_*_GMAC
> authentic
On Dec 21, 2009, at 7:08 PM, Masood, Faisal wrote:
> The support of WESP encryption, as it currently stands in the draft, is
> important and we would like to discuss this in detail but many of our
> core team members are away for the holidays.
>
The issue is certainly seen as important by some
Paul and I agree that a discussion is needed, and we will open this discussion
in a week's time, when most of the WG members are back from vacation.
In the meantime, Happy Holidays!
Yaron
-Original Message-
From: ipsec-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipsec-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf O
