Re: [Mipshop] WG Last Call on draft-ietf-mipshop-cga-cba-01.txt

[Christian Vogt <chvogt at tm.uka.de>]

Hi Zhen,

thanks for pointing this out.  You are right in that the paragraph may
be confusing.

Note, however, that a CGA is not fully verified unless the signature is
checked.  Simply recomputing the hash solely confirms that the CGA
originates from a given public key.  The interesting part is to whom
that public key really belongs.

Nonetheless, this will be clarified.

- Christian

-- 
Christian Vogt, Institute of Telematics, Universitaet Karlsruhe (TH)
www.tm.uka.de/~chvogt/pubkey/



CAO, ZHEN wrote:
> 
> Hi everybody,
>  
> In section 3 Protocol Design:
> <snip>
>    Semi-permanent security associations
> 
>       Cryptographically generated addresses involve public-key
>       cryptography and are computationally inefficient to validate.
> <snip>
>  
> IMO, cryptographically generated address generation and verification
> does not need any public-key cryptographical computation (only hash
> computation). Only when the CGA signature is used will the public-key
> cryptography be involved. I think the sentence here refers to the CGA
> signature or implys that any CGA should be used with a private key
> signature. But unfortunately it is not clear enough in the document.
>  
> Many thanks,
> Zhen



_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
Mipshop at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop