In the proposal, I just indicated that the "value" is a hash - it's
currently 32 bytes which only allows for a 256-bit hash. If we mandate
that it should be able
to hold a SHA-512 as well, we'll have to double it's length. I think
just getting agreement for the existence of the attribute is the goal,
we can flex the size of the
field once we have consensus on the acceptance of the attribute.
I agree with your comment about which values to include in the hash,
but from a protocol perspective, the mechanisms would work pretty much
the same way.
Even though a vendor could allow customers to indicate which
parameters are included in the hash, the "management tool in the sky"
would have to know which
parameters make up the hash, on a per-device basis, in order to
potentially remediate the situation. Given this constraint, I think
vendors should supply a factory
default set of params that make up the hash, a set that makes sense in
the majority of cases, and allow customers to override this, provided
they "sync up" their
remediation infrastructure with the same info...
On Aug 15, 2008, at 10:31 AM, Dave Whitehead wrote:
>> Looks good. Two comments about Configuration State:
>> 1> We should mandate the use of a cryptographically secure hash
> function (SHA256/512)
>> 2> Vendors provide the set of available configuration items but the
> customer selects which items to include in the hash -- some they
> care about, some they don't.
>> David H. Whitehead
> Development Engineer
> Lexmark International, Inc.
>>> Randy Turner <rturner at amalfisystems.com>
> Sent by: owner-ids at pwg.org> 08/15/08 04:02 AM
>ids at pwg.org> cc
> IDS> DRAFT: IETF NEA proposal
>>>>>> Hi All,
>> Please read the attached RTF and provide any feedback you may have...
>> Please excuse the VERY simple, raw formatting I'm using - this has
> to be
> in the simplest ASCII text form possible for eventual emailing to the
> mailing list.
>> For now, just concentrate on the content :) :)
>>> [attachment "draft-nea-proposal.rtf" deleted by Dave Whitehead/Lex/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...