There are other ways to meet the intent of Consider updating the SFR 2 As for comment this requirement besides sending over and and/or Test in SD to above, the test description 2^28 packets to a device. For example, accommodate other testing has been updated as showing that a rekey occurs after a methods that still ensure the described in NIT Decision specified time period and justification that threat is mitigated. RfI#24. no more than 2^28 packets will be transmitted in that time. Test 2 - 2 requires the testing of an update Modify Test 2 2) to remove 2 The test description has been – for "an image without published hash". In the no hash option. However, the updated as described in NIT some cases, this would be a non-test admin guidance should instruct Decision RfI#26, to improve because without a hash value documented the admin not to attempt the the description of test cases there is nothing for the admin to validate installation of an update unless for updates using published the hash value against. they have a published hash from hashes. There is also an the developer. The guidance update to the guidance to would also tell them how to add an explicit check to obtain the published hash, how ensure that it explains how the hash is generated for the to obtain the published hash update, and how the admin (there is already a compares the hash. requirement to describe how to perform an update).
and There are other ways to meet the intent of this requirement besides sending over 2^28 packets to a device. For example, showing that a rekey occurs after a specified time period and justification that no more than 2^28 packets will be transmitted in that time. Consider updating the SFR and/or Test in SD to accommodate other testing methods that still ensure the threat is mitigated. 2 As for comment above, the test description has been updated as described in NIT Decision RfI#24. Test 2 - 2 requires the testing of an update for "an image without published hash". In some cases, this would be a non-test because without a hash value documented there is nothing for the admin to validate the hash value against. Modify Test 2 – 2) to remove the no hash option. However, the admin guidance should instruct the admin not to attempt the installation of an update unless they have a published hash from the developer. The guidance would also tell them how to obtain the published hash, how the hash is generated for the update, and how the admin compares the hash. 2 The test description has been updated as described in NIT Decision RfI#26, to improve the description of test cases for updates using published hashes. There is also an update to the guidance to add an explicit check to ensure that it explains how to obtain the published hash (there is already a requirement to describe how to perform an update).
ConsolidatediTCcomments-NDcPPv2-SD-20160721-v2.9.docx