home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
Internet Info 1994 March
/
Internet Info CD-ROM (Walnut Creek) (March 1994).iso
/
inet
/
ietf
/
snmpauth
/
snmpauth-minutes-90may.txt
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1993-02-17
|
4KB
|
105 lines
CURRENT_MEETING_REPORT_
Reported by Jeff Schiller/ MIT
Mintues
The SNMP Authentication Working Group met at the Pittsburgh IETF meeting
on May 2, 1990.
The primary focus of the meeting was a discussion of the relative merits
of various Cryptographic Checksum algorithms used to ensure origination
authentication and integrity of Protocol Data Units (PDUs). This
discussion was the result of comments received from members of the
Privacy and Security Research Group which reviewed the documents.
Basically the problem boiled down to identifying which algorithms were
both secure enough and yet were fast enough for the potential high
traffic volumes that they may be needed to process. The algorithms
discussed were:
QMDC4, QMDC1, MD2, MD4, SNEFRU2, SNEFRU4.
It was announced at the meeting that SNEFRU2 had been broken, and the
consensus was that it therefore should not be considered.
There was a sense that we needed to get cloture on the issue of what
algorithm to use, in time for implementations to be demonstrated at
Interop in October.
Therefore the following decisions and action items resulted:
o Consensus was reached that the RFC should *not* provide a menu of
choices for implementors. Instead the RFC should specify just one
of the candidate algorithms as the selected algorithm. This was
argued on the basis that if more then one was allowed, each vendor
would pragmatically need to support all of them, at a cost in terms
of the development time for product, and memory size of the runtime
binary.
o Jeff Mogul and Chuck Davin volunteered to get performance numbers
on the various candidate algorithms and post their results to the
mailing list. The hope here is that of all the algorithms,
sufficient number would be of high performance that at least one
could be found that would be both fast and secure enough to pass a
review by people who can judge the security of these types of
algorithms.
o The above work would be completed and a selection made in time to
advance the three documents for consideration as "Proposed
Standards" of the Internet.
Since the meeting was held, the performance measures have been made and
1
it appears that MD4 is the clear performance winner. The documents will
be changed to reflect this and submitted to the IETF with the
recommendation they be progressed to the Proposed Draft state.
ATTENDEES
Hossein Alaee hossein_alaee@3com.com
Stan Ames sra@mbunix.mitre.org
Douglas Bagnall bagnall_d@apollo.hp.com
Pat Barron pat@trqnsarc.com
Pablo Brenner
Alison Brown alison@maverick@osc.edu
Ted Brunner tob@thumper.bellcore.com
Jeff Carpenter jjc@unix.cis.pitt.edu
Martina Chan mchan@mot.com
Steve Crocker crocker@tis.com
James Davin jrd@ptt.lcs.mit.edu
Frank Kastenholtz kasten@interlan.interlan.com
Louis Mamakos louie@trantor.umd.edu
Keith McCloghrie sytek!kzm@hplabs.hp.com
Jeffrey Mogul mogul@decwrl.dec.com
Oscar Newkerk newkerk@decwet.dec.com
John O'hara johara@mit.edu
Brad Parker brad@cayman.com ?
Mike Patton map@lcs.mit.edu
David Perkins dave_perkins@3com.com
Tod Pike tgp@sei.emu.edu
Jonathan Saperia saperia%tcpjon@decwrl.dec.com
Greg Satz satz@cisco.com
Jeffrey Schiller jis@athena.mit.edu
Richard Smith smiddy@dss.com ?
Ted Soo-Hoo soo-hoo@dg-rtp.dg.com
Michael StJohns stjohns@umd5.umd.edu
Louis Steinberg louiss@ibm.com
Ian Thomas ian@chipcom.com
David Waiteman djw@bbn.com
Steve Waldbusser sw0l@andrew.cmu.edu
Y C Wang 21040 Homestead Rd Cupertino,Ca 95041
2