- Original Message -
From: Frank Ellermann [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: 'monotonic increasing'
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
a RFC-2119 type RFC to define mathematical terms ?
Maybe more like some glossaries (Internet, security
of using perfect terminology (or phraseology).
--
Eric
-- -Original Message-
-- From: Tom.Petch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 3:50 PM
-- To: ietf; Frank Ellermann
-- Subject: Re: 'monotonic increasing'
--
-- - Original Message -
-- From: Frank
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
I am pretty sure that if we started using the terms
'surjection', 'bijection' ct. instead of 'one to one',
'one to many' we would end up with similar confusion.
Yes, but at least there's only one definition, unlike
montonic increasing with more common definitions.
It seems to me that the real question here is, should there
be a RFC-2119 type RFC to define mathematical terms ?
Otherwise this thread is unlikely to do much to change the
situation.
Regards
Marshall Eubanks
On Feb 21, 2006, at 4:07 AM, Frank Ellermann wrote:
Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
repertoire' is enough to start
a thread. And 'monotonic increasing' instead of
'strictly (monotonic) increasing' is apparently a
similar issue.
Bye, Frank
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo
- Original Message -
From: Yaakov Stein [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Tom.Petch [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Elwyn Davies
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: ietf ietf@ietf.org
Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 7:10 AM
Subject: RE: 'monotonic increasing'
Actually, even mathematicians don't agree on the wording here
But just to be clear, if you saw a reference to 'monotonic increasing'
in an American journal,
say of applied mathematics, would you be sure you understood what was
meant?
That would depend on the subject matter.
If the article was on real analysis (where the domain is
nondenumerable
the terms 'surjection',
'bijection' ct. instead of 'one to one', 'one to many' we would end up
with similar confusion.
-Original Message-
From: Tom.Petch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 9:44 AM
To: Yaakov Stein
Cc: ietf
Subject: Re: 'monotonic increasing
and not necessary to
say more than that.
--
Eric
-- -Original Message-
-- From: Yaakov Stein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 11:12 AM
-- To: Tom.Petch
-- Cc: ietf
-- Subject: RE: 'monotonic increasing'
--
--
--
-- But just to be clear, if you saw a reference
Tom.Petch wrote:
The phrase 'monotonic increasing' seems to be a Humpty-Dumpty one, used with a
different sense within RFC to that which I see defined elsewhere; and this
could lead to a reduction in security.
Elsewhere - dictionaries, encyclopaedia, text books - I see it
defined so
Title: Re: 'monotonic increasing'
Actually, even mathematicians don't agree on the
wording here.
In analysis wecommonly talk aboutmonotonic
functions,
which can be either monotonically increasing ( x =
y = f(x) = f(y) )
or monotonically decreasing ( x = y
= f(x) = f(y) ).
Since
as
well as CS), a monotonic increasing sequence is one where each
element is strictly greater than the previous element.
b) each number is an integer
Well, we deal with integers a lot...
Q1) Can anyone point me to an authoritative source that endorses
the RFC usage?
Actually, I'd
The phrase 'monotonic increasing' seems to be a Humpty-Dumpty one, used with a
different sense within RFC to that which I see defined elsewhere; and this
could lead to a reduction in security.
Elsewhere - dictionaries, encyclopaedia, text books - I see it
defined so that when applied
Ken Raeburn wrote:
I'd be surprised to see sources for the other usage.
A Dictionary of mathematics offers both definitions, first
what you found f(x) f(y) for x y. Followed by the other
definition f(x) = f(y), where the first case would be called
strictly monotone. I vaguely recall that
that
That's non-decreasing. As far as I've ever heard (math classes as
well as CS), a monotonic increasing sequence is one where each
element is strictly greater than the previous element.
Tom's definition is also correct. A strictly monotonically increasing
sequence has each term larger than its
Hi.
Tom.Petch wrote:
The phrase 'monotonic increasing' seems to be a Humpty-Dumpty one, used with a
different sense within RFC to that which I see defined elsewhere; and this
could lead to a reduction in security.
Elsewhere - dictionaries, encyclopaedia, text books - I see it
defined so
Elwyn
To be more concrete, I have some 1800 RFC readily available and find monotonic
in 54 of them from RFC677 (1975) to RFC4303.
Plucking a few at random, RFC3412 (SNMP) suggests that monotonic increasing
would avoid reuse while RFC2406 (IPsec) suggests monotonic increasing can be
used
In your previous mail you wrote:
A Dictionary of mathematics offers both definitions, first
what you found f(x) f(y) for x y. Followed by the other
definition f(x) = f(y), where the first case would be called
strictly monotone. I vaguely recall that strict (in the
German
of them from RFC677 (1975) to RFC4303.
Plucking a few at random, RFC3412 (SNMP) suggests that monotonic increasing
would avoid reuse while RFC2406 (IPsec) suggests monotonic increasing can be
used in the context of replay attacks. (I accept that in the latter, as in many
cases, understanding
I agree that there is no clear cut case where security will be compromised, but
as long as RFC eg RFC1510 (kerberos) tie the concept of nonce to a monotonic
increasing sequence, I think the risk is there and could easily be avoided if we
started using the term 'strictly increasing' instead
Huh. You learn somethin' new every day...
On Feb 17, 2006, at 16:06, Tom.Petch wrote:
I agree that there is no clear cut case where security will be
compromised, but
as long as RFC eg RFC1510 (kerberos) tie the concept of nonce to a
monotonic
increasing sequence, I think the risk
21 matches
Mail list logo
