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 Callas jon(_at_)pgp(_dot_)com
CTO, Total Network Security 3965 Freedom Circle
Network Associates, Inc. Santa Clara, CA 95054
Fingerprints: D1EC 3C51 FCB1 67F8 4345 4A04 7DF9 C2E6 F129 27A9 (DSS)
665B 797F 37D1 C240 53AC 6D87 3A60 4628 (RSA)