At 10:39 PM 4/7/99 -0700, hal(_at_)rain(_dot_)org wrote:
|Yes, you're right, that is inconsistent with section 5.7. I don't
|know how we should resolve it.
|
When we were working on the RFC, the question of larger blocks came up, and
there were some suggestions of changing all the 8s to Ns, and 10s to N+2s
etc. There was the concern that we would make a mistake. We had the
advantage the first time that people (like Tom) coded to the original
description, and thus we had a check that it actually worked. So I put in
the paragraph in 12.8, as a quick way to describe how to do the right thing.
Do we agree now that the right thing to do is to start with a 16-byte IV,
encrypt 16 bytes, sync with 2 and then continue? That's what I thought we
all agreed on. If we agree that, then we don't have a problem, we have an
elided description that needs to be expanded when we revise the RFC. I
believe, though, that that's the right thing to do, work with full blocksizes.
Jon
-----
Jon Callas jon(_at_)pgp(_dot_)com
CTO, Total Network Security 3965 Freedom Circle
Network Associates, Inc. Santa Clara, CA 95054
(408) 346-5860
Fingerprints: D1EC 3C51 FCB1 67F8 4345 4A04 7DF9 C2E6 F129 27A9 (DSS)
665B 797F 37D1 C240 53AC 6D87 3A60 4628 (RSA)