Subject: RE: [Cfrg] UMAC status?

From: Ted Krovetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2002 07:37:30 -0700

Hello,

We have not lost interest in UMAC, and we still believe it has a great
future in high-speed authentication. In fact, a European Union initiative
(NESSIE) is considering making UMAC a standard.

We intend to revisit UMAC in the near future and convert the UMAC
Internet-Draft into an Informational RFC. At the present time, we have no
intention of changing any algorithmic details. We have not received a large
number of comments on the draft (which is one reason it has not been
updated), so any feedback you may wish to give us would be very welcome.

  http://www.cs.ucdavis.edu/~rogaway/umac/

Thank you,
Ted Krovetz 

> Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2002 23:25:47 -0400
> From: John Kane <[email-masked]>
> Reply-To: [email-masked]
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U)
> X-Accept-Language: en
> To: Ted Krovetz <[email-masked]>
> CC: Phillip Rogaway <[email-masked]>, John Black <[email-masked]>
> Subject: [Cfrg] UMAC status?
> 
> Wei Dai (on the IRTF crypto forum) writes:
>   wd> Does anyone know what happened to the UMAC Internet Draft?
>   wd> Did the authors lose interest in turning it into an RFC, or is there
>   wd> a better alternative now?
> 
> http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/cfrg/current/msg00092.html
>   followup to:  [email-masked]
> 
> 
> --
> John Kane
> Boston, MA (eastern USA)
> IETF-OpenPGP working group

_______________________________________________
Cfrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/cfrg

---

From: "David A. Mcgrew" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:37:53 -0700

Ted,

thanks for the update, more inline:

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Ted
> Krovetz
> Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 7:38 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [Cfrg] UMAC status?
>
>
> Hello,
>

Are there any differences between the algorithm described in the ID and that
submitted to NESSIE?

(For those who haven't seen it yet, NESSIE is the New European Schemes for
Signatures, Integrity, and Encryption, which is online at
https://www.cosic.esat.kuleuven.ac.be/nessie/.)

> Internet-Draft into an Informational RFC.

Good, I encourage you to submit the draft to CFRG.  It's definitely in-scope for
the RG, and universal hashing based MACs are an area where practice has not yet
caught up with theory.

> At the present time, we have no

One quick comment I'd have is that it would be good to have some test cases
included in the specification.

David

---

From: Ted Krovetz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Oct 2002 10:51:13 -0700

> Are there any differences between the algorithm described in the ID and that

No.

> included in the specification.

Yes, NESSIE has asked for these as well. The reason there are none in the
current ID is that UMAC is sufficiently complex that I do not have 100%
confidence in my implementation. I was hoping that some independent
implementation would either confirm or point out some of my own coding
errors.

I intend to re-implement UMAC from the ID and compare the new code's output
with that of the old. Enough time has passed that I believe my two
implementations could be considered independent. Any other coders are
welcome to join in the fun (contact me for information).

Thanks,
Ted