eap Mailing List: Re: Proposed Resolution of Issue 215: Comments on Section 3

[Jari Arkko (jari.arkko]

Joseph Salowey wrote:

> [Joe] With these definitions the key name length is highly variable.  I

Yes.

> think it would be better to have a constant length identifier for the key.
> A length of 128 bits should be sufficient.  Perhaps it can be defined as the
> SHA-1 hash of the data listed above (make it 160 bits for simplicity).

I would be fine with that, except that I wonder if we can agree
on the single hash function to use, or if we need to negotiate the hash
function somehow. At this point it is not obvious to me that the
negotiation can be done given the current protocols. What are
your thoughts on this?

--Jari