On 08/09/2013 05:34 PM, Hosnieh Rafiee wrote: > >> * In Section 1, you should probably remove some of the general discussion > on >> security and privacy here. For instance, some of your definitions seem >> incomplete. > > Ok, I think I just did not want to jump to the topic and have a kind of > introduction. Maybe I just refer to cooper's draft.
Just focus on the problem you're trying to solve, and provide references where necessary. >> Meta comment: If an implementation is going through the burden of >> implementing this algorithm, it might as well implement a good PRNG, and > be >> done with it (if I understand correctly, the motivation for specifying > this >> algorithm is that you don't have a good PRNG, right?). > > One reason is PRNG and the other reason is in case the node doesn't want to > use stable storage. IMO, reason "1" is void: If an implementer is going through the effort of implementing this document, he/she'd rather implement a god PRNG. Regarding "2", do you realy need stable storage? -- we're talking about 64-bit IIDs here. Besides, there are IPRs on the CGA algorithm... but RFC4941 itself doesn't have any. SO this document would essentially IPR-encumber RFC4941 -- the farther that you can get from that, the better, I'd say. :-) Cheers, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: [email protected] || [email protected] PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
