Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-gont-numeric-ids-sec-considerations-06.txt> (Security Considerations for Transient Numeric Identifiers Employed in Network Protocols) to Best Current Practice

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Hello Russ

On 12/11/20 1:58 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
>>> 2) The document is really about transient identifiers.  It does not only apply to ones that are numeric.
>>
>> That's probably the case. However, the ones we assessed are all numeric identifiers. And those are the ones that we have analyzed in the companion document draft-irtf-pearg-numeric-ids-generation
>>
>> Just curious: what are the non-numeric transient identifiers you had in mind?
> 
> You missed my point.  I would not want someone to think that the guidance here in to relevant because the implementation uses a string variable.
> 
> Russ

I've missed it as well. Did you mean that the recommendations apply to
any type of protocol object/field used as a transient identifier ?
or that any transient identifier can be mapped to a number (its just a
bit sequence after all) and therefore the "numeric" term is redundant ?


/ivan

-- 
Iván Arce
CTO - Security Analysis
Quarkslab

-- 
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux