- From: Frederick Hirsch <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2009 12:46:27 -0500
- To: ext Thomas Roessler <tlr@w3.org>
- Cc: Frederick Hirsch <Frederick.Hirsch@nokia.com>, Magnus Nystrom <mnystrom@microsoft.com>, XMLSec WG Public List <public-xmlsec@w3.org>
The phrase " whichever of these two values is greater." does not seem
clear to me. Isn't it invalid if either condition holds? Why the
comparison?
regards, Frederick
Frederick Hirsch
Nokia
On Dec 31, 2009, at 12:36 PM, ext Thomas Roessler wrote:
> On 31 Dec 2009, at 18:20, Magnus Nystrom wrote:
>
>> For
>>
>>> 2. HMACOutputLength warning
>>>
>>> We added in section 4.4.2
>>>
>>> [[Signatures must be deemed invalid if the truncation length is
>>> below
>>> half the underlying hash algorithm's output length, or 80 bits,
>>> whichever of these two values is greater.]]
>>>
>>> it seems it is invalid if (a) truncation length < half output length
>>> and/or (b) < 80 bits.
>>>
>>> Can we remove the phrase ", whichever of these two values is
>>> greater."
>>>
>>> If not, what does it add beyond conditions (a) and (b)?
>>
>> I guess an alternative could be:
>>
>> "Signatures must ("MUST"?) be deemed invalid when the truncation
>> length is less than the greater of half the underlying hash
>> algorithm's output length or 80 bits."
>>
>> But that still seems a bit convoluted. Why not just
>>
>> "Signatures must ("MUST"?) be deemed invalid when the truncation
>> length is less than half the underlying hash algorithm's output
>> length.
>>
>> (Assuming the use of hash algorithms with output length <160 bits
>> will go away)
>
> While that assumption doesnt' seem unreasonable, I wouldn't want to
> make it *implicit*, as you seem to suggest. I suppose I'm biased in
> favor of the current text since I wrote it, but I wouldn't want to
> loose either of the two lower bounds from the spec.
>
Received on Thursday, 31 December 2009 17:47:20 UTC