Subject: Re: WG last call - TSIG

From: Robert Elz <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 01 Jan 1999 14:05:18 +1100

Date:        Thu, 31 Dec 1998 16:39:41 -0500
    From:        Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
    Message-ID:  <3.0.5.32.19981231163941.009102e0@localhost>

  | I think TSIG passed the last call period. 

Yes, so do I basically.

  | Suggestion: add Original Message ID to signature calculation 

Hmm, it seemed to me that the eventual result was that all that needed
to be done was to explain why it was not in the signature calculation.
That is, your explanation to the list was clear enough, that just needed
to be included in the draft.    However, adding it would also seem
reasonable to me.

  | Suggestion: Define new TSIG error code MSGIDERR. 

Fine.

  | Did I miss anything ? 

I don't think so.

  | Can I edit the draft to reflect these changes and ask for advancement ? 

Sure.    And thanks.

kre

---

From: "Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 02 Jan 1999 19:55:52 -0500

While I'm still not completely happy with the use of the Other field
in case of time errors and the requirement that some error messages be
unsigned when signing does no harm and could help, I will not press
for changes there.

I think the thing to do is to get it out as Proposed Standard and get
some experience.

From:  Olafur Gudmundsson <[email-masked]>
Message-Id:  <3.0.5.32.19981231163941.009102e0@localhost>
Date:  Thu, 31 Dec 1998 16:39:41 -0500
To:  [email-masked]

>Robert,
>I think TSIG passed the last call period. 
>I think the comments can be summarized as follows
>
>Stewart Kwan wondered why Original Message ID was not part of signature
>calculation.
>Brian Wellington explained why (it would be a duplication). 
>Mark Andrews voiced support for including the OMID in the calculation
>or better explanation why it is not. 
>Suggestion: add Original Message ID to signature calculation 

I think it would be better to explain why it need not be explicitly
included.

>Brian wondered if a new error code should defined for the case if 
>Message ID (in DNS header) and Original Message ID (in TSIG record) on a
>non forwardable message differ ? 
>No comments
>Suggestion: Define new TSIG error code MSGIDERR. 

Sure.

>Did I miss anything ? 
>
>Can I edit the draft to reflect these changes and ask for advancement ? 
>
>	Olafur 
>
>----------------------------------------------------
>Olafur Gudmundsson 	    		[email-masked]   (work)
>443-259-2389 (NEW PHONE NUMBER)	[email-masked]   (private)

Thanks,
Donald
===================================================================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1 914-276-2668   [email-masked]
 65 Shindegan Hill Rd, RR#1  +1 914-784-7913(w)     [email-masked]
 Carmel, NY 10512 USA