Subject: Re: [lamps] Robert Wilton's No Objection on draft-ietf-lamps-ocsp-nonce-04: (with COMMENT)

From: Mohit Sahni <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 11:08:00 -0700

Adding LAMPS WG mailer list.

On Tue, Sep 8, 2020 at 4:36 AM Salz, Rich <[email-masked]> wrote:

> As Mohit said, it’s more of a freshness guarantee that the response that
> came back is replying to the query.  It doesn’t have to be globally unique;
> it has to be unique for a specific responder, for the time period covered
> by the validity of the response.
>
>
>
> As for the term nonce, wow.  There’s already work in gendispatch to look
> at possibly problematic words, and I hope that this small RFC update
> doesn’t have to wait for that work to be done.
>

---

From: Mohit Sahni <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 17:34:33 -0700

Hi Rob,
Apologies for the delay in responding to your email, I just realized that I
have not addressed your comment completely. We choose a 32 byte long random
number as it is a common practice to use a 16 to 32 byte long random number
in many widely used protocols for the same purpose. One such example is the
client random and server random fields in the TLS handshake. I hope I
addressed your concerns about why we choose a 32 byte value for Nonce.

Thanks
Mohit