Subject: RE: New X9.42 draft

From: "Jim Schaad (Exchange)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1998 05:59:06 -0800

Changes:

1. Section 2.1.7 missing a return on the pubInfo Paragraph.

2. ASN formatting issue.  Should be another return and indentation for a2 42
<CR> 04 40

3. General statment:  I don't like formulas of the format "ZZ = a ^ b (mod
p)".  This does not make sense to me from my old days in math class.  Should
this be written as "ZZ = (a ^ x) mod p" which corresponds to what my math
teacher said? (I never got into the high level math courses in college.)

4. Section 2.1.1 - reverse the definitions of j and q so that j has a
definition on the same line.

5.  Section 2.1.2 - new text on counter issue.
counter is a 32 bit number, represented in network byte order. Its
     initial value is 1 for any ZZ, i.e. the byte sequence 00 00 00 01
(hex),
     and it is incremented by one every time the above key generation
     function is run for a given KEK.

6.  Section 2.1.7 remove the phase "first invocation" in reference to SHA
hashing, there is no second invocation for RC2.

7. Section 2.2.2 - bullet #2 - What is the "seed 'seed'"  string for.  I
don't follow why the word is there twice.

8.  Security Considerations --  I have a problem with the concept of placing
SHOULD and MAY in this section.  This is suppose to be an advisary section
and I am not sure we want to try and get two implementations that actually
deal with the suggested text.

9.  Section 2.2.1.1 - I would recommend changing '160] 2^' to '160] * 2^'

10.  Section 2.2.1.1 - In step 10 the string starting with "Note" is in
twice.  One should be removed.

jim,

---

From: EKR <[email-masked]>
Date: 10 Dec 1998 08:23:23 -0800

> 1. Section 2.1.7 missing a return on the pubInfo Paragraph.
I can't see this. Can you post the offending line?

> 2. ASN formatting issue.  Should be another return and indentation for a2 42
Done.

> teacher said? (I never got into the high level math courses in college.)
I think the conventions are mixed, but if noone else objects I'll
change this.

> definition on the same line.
Done.

>      function is run for a given KEK.
Done.

> hashing, there is no second invocation for RC2.
Done.

> don't follow why the word is there twice.
Because it refers to a field in the validationParms structure.

> deal with the suggested text.
Hmm... I think these requirements should go somewhere. I'm open to
moving them somewhere else

> 9.  Section 2.2.1.1 - I would recommend changing '160] 2^' to '160] * 2^'
Done.

> twice.  One should be removed.
Done.

-Ekr

-- 
[Eric Rescorla                                   [email-masked]]