Subject: Sending kink to IETF last call

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 18:11:00 -0500 (EST)

Hi.  I reviewed kink 10.  I'm really impressed at all the work that
has gone into this version and the previous versions.  I appreciate
the working group's efforts in working with me to resolve my comments.
I realize it was frustrating, but I think we have an excellent spec to
bring to the IESG.

I'm going to send kink for an ietf last call.  If we're lucky we may
have IESG approval by the end of the year.

I do have two comments.  The first is regarding section 10.  Is the
advice there actually true?  Just because I have a keytab doesn't mean
others won't be using u2u.  I'd like to propose removing this section.

Also, I seem to recall that Kink is actually implemented.  I'm a bit
confused how that works.  As far as I know neither MIT nor Heimdal
actually ship something that implements an RFC 3961 PRF.  Did the Kink
implementation include its own version of the 3961 PRF?  If so, can we
compare test vectors?

--Sam

---

From: "KAMADA Ken'ichi" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:46:46 +0900

At Tue, 22 Nov 2005 18:11:00 -0500 (EST),
> others won't be using u2u.  I'd like to propose removing this section.

I personally have no problem with removing it, because
the draft-10 has some guidance when to go to U2U in section 3.1
and how to deny U2U in section 4.2.8.

> implementation include its own version of the 3961 PRF?  If so, can we

(Partially) yes, and yes.

The released KINK implementation in racoon2 was based on draft-06
and it didn't use 3961 PRF.
I have a version of implementation based on draft-10 in my cvs branch,
and it does have its own PRF routines (currently, only for des-cbc-md5
and des3-cbc-sha1-kd) as a temporary measure until MIT/Heimdal
provides them.

Test vectors are undoubtedly welcome.

# Of course, new MIT krb5 and Heimdal with 3961 PRF are also welcome :-)

-- 
KAMADA Ken'ichi <[email-masked]>