[STDS-802-11-TGM] Naming of hashes and HMACs

Thread Links	Date Links
Thread Prev	Thread Next	Thread Index	Date Prev	Date Next	Date Index

I propose to run a straw poll during a (maybe the next) TGmc teleconf to gauge

the task group's preference re naming of hashes and HMACs. The teleconfs are

often sparsely attended, so if you have a preference but might not attend, you

could tell me in advance your preference by email. The SP would ask for a

preference among the following options:

1) Throughout the spec, refer to hashes by their official name, refer to

HMACs as HMAC-hash[-len] where hash is the alphanumeric characters in the

hash name. No additional statements are necessary since this conforms to

the relevant clause 2 references (FIPS 180-3 and RFC 2104), which are

normative.

Examples: SHA-256, HMAC-SHA256, HMAC-SHA256-128, SHA-1, HMAC-SHA1, HMAC-SHA1-64

2) Throughout the spec, refer to hashes by their official name without

non-alphanumeric characters, refer to HMACs as HMAC-hash[-len] where

hash is the alphanumeric characters in the hash name, and put a statement

in clause 1 to that effect. Note it has to be clause 1 since various

hashes appear before clause 11 without definition, and the terminology

differs from that given in the relevant clause 2 reference (FIPS 180-3),

which is normative.

Examples: SHA256, HMAC-SHA256, HMAC-SHA256-128, SHA1, HMAC-SHA1, HMAC-SHA1-64

3) Throughout the spec, refer to hashes by their official name, refer to

HMACs as HMAC-hash[/len] where hash is the hash name, and put a statement in

clause 1 to that effect. Note it probably has to be clause 1 since the

terminology differs from that given in the relevant clause 2 reference

(RFC 2104), which is normative; it might instead be possible to special-case

the one use prior to clause 11 and put the statement in clause 11.

Examples: SHA-256, HMAC-SHA-256, HMAC-SHA-256/128, SHA-1, HMAC-SHA-1, HMAC-SHA-1/64

If option 1) is preferred, I may then do a SP on whether there should

be a special case for "HMAC-SHA-1". This would probably need something

in clause 1 since the terminology differs from that given in the relevant

clause 2 reference (RFC 2104), which is normative; it might instead be

possible to special-case the one use prior to clause 11 and put the

statement in clause 11.

Mark

Mark RISON, Standards Architect, WLAN English/Esperanto/Français

Samsung Cambridge Solution Centre Tel: +44 1223 434600

Innovation Park, Cambridge CB4 0DS Fax: +44 1223 434601

ROYAUME UNI WWW: http://www.samsung.com/uk

IF YOU WISH to be Removed from this reflector, PLEASE DO NOT send your request to this CLOSED reflector. We use this valuable tool to communicate on the issues at hand.