On 17/12/20 20:47, Joseph Touch wrote:
[....]
I don’t think this is actually a practical problem, although I am
curious to know if you know of new hardware for which it would be a
problem. I will admit that ancient hardware might have trouble, but it
probably won’t be updated, given the state of the art at present, so I
don’t think such a device poses a serious problem.
What you add as a requirement ends up excluding as a platform.
3. Recommend an algorithm for generating the aforementioned
identifiers that mitigates security and privacy issues, such as
those discussed in [I-D.irtf-pearg-numeric-ids-generation].
Recommend != require. e.g. SHOULD vs MUST.
We recommend that you do this, but we understand there might be reasons
(e.g., implementations constrains) for which you might need to do
something else.
That provides a safe default. Folks that think know better, are on their
own.
Nowadays, both folks that know better, and those that do not, are on
their own.
Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
