Subject: linting draft-ietf-msgtrk-protocol-00.txt

From: Lyndon Nerenberg <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 14:08:40 -0600

Here are a few things that popped out during my initial read of the 
draft.

Section 3:

* line 2: s/message may issue the EHLO command/message MUST issue the 
EHLO command/

Section 4.2.1

s/the Tracking ID is REQUIRED to be/the Tracking ID MUST be/

  "generational counter MUST be incremented by one."

contradicts the followon sentence. Suggest: "generational counter MUST
be incremented." and drop the following sentence (... small amount ...)
(or provide a rational for it?).

Section 4.2.2

  s/This secret value MAY be a per-message secret/This secret value 
SHOULD
  be a per-message secret/

Is there a reason for MAY here instead of SHOULD?

Section 4.2.4

  "This value is then expressed as a series of
  32 hexadecimal digits, either lower- or upper-case, transmitted in
  internet byte order (low-endian ???? )"

This should read 'case independent'.

"internet byte order" reads as if it applies to the US-ASCII string.
This needs clarification that the ordering is of the underlying 16 byte
binary string.

Section 6.1

s/S: 25o <[email-masked]>/S: 250 <[email-masked]>/

Section 7

There *are* security issues with the hash calculations, and with the
requirements of section 4.2.2. We should at least draw attention to
the hazards of reusing the secret.

--lyndon

---

From: Jens Müller <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2000 22:42:26 +0200

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Lyndon Nerenberg" <[email-masked]>
To: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 10:08 PM
Subject: linting draft-ietf-msgtrk-protocol-00.txt

> This needs clarification that the ordering is of the underlying 16 byte
isn't it "Network Byte Order"?

Jens