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

[Joseph Salowey (jsalowey]

Jari Arkko wrote:
> 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?
> 

[Joe] Basically I think this should be up to the method.  Methods should
define a default key naming hashing scheme.  If a method wants to have the
ability to negotiate other hash functions for naming then it can, but I
don't really see this as necessary.   What we probably want to define is a
name length that method should output, in general 128 bits seems sufficient.


> --Jari