Subject: [abfab] eap-aes128 or eap-aes128-cts-hmac-sha1-96

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2012 15:10:22 -0500

hi. The draft currently proposes the longer SASL name, but the Moonshot
implementation mostly (except in one comment) uses the shorter name.
Changing either the draft or the Moonshot code would not be a big deal.

I bring this up because I seem to remember some discussion of the
shorter name.

Advantages of the shorter name: shorter and easier to remember for
configuration and debugging.

Disadvantages: There have been other proposals for aes128 Kerberos
enctypes.

Please let me know what we want.

would we be OK with eap-aes128 meaning eap-aes128-cts-hmac-sha1-96 and
eap-aes128-gcm meaning the obvious thing?

---

From: Luke Howard <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2012 09:52:22 +1100

> eap-aes128-gcm meaning the obvious thing?

I think this is a sensible compromise.