On Fri, Mar 11, 2011 at 8:07 AM, Martin Rex <mrex@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> I don't recall why 12 bytes rather than 16 bytes or 20 was chosen. > > It is not unusual when a two group of folks (IPSEC and TLS) sourcing from > the same pool of engineers and experts (IETF) have to do two very > similar decisions (truncating HMAC-SHA-1) within a fairly short time, > end up with the same conclusion. > > http://www.ietf.org/html/rfc2404 Jan-1998 HMAC-SHA-1-96 (for IPSEC) > http://www.ietf.org/html/rfc2246 Jan-1999 TLSv1.0 > > > The dates vs. rfc-numbers of these two documents look strange: > The dates indicate they were published one year apart, but given > their rfc-numbers, one would intuitively expect their dates to > be just the other way round. TLS 1.0 was held up in process for a long time due to normative dependency issues vis-a-vis PKIX. -Ekr _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf