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]

 





On Dec 14, 2020, at 9:12 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Flawed IDs introduce problems. IDs that are not flawed do not.

Christian has expressed much of my position, with the exception of the following:

IMO - protocols MUST NOT limit how IDs are selected or used. The issue isn’t the protocol spec; it’s the implementation.

I.e., an *implementation* MAY do so. These recommendations MAY be useful, to that end.

What I want to avoid is breaking the potential for IoT devices to use these protocols simply because they can’t implement the approaches described here.

I also want to avoid a receiver saying “hey, sender, you picked the IDs badly, so I won’t connect to you”.

That’s where I worry this is headed, and want to avoid.

Joe



-- 
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