Paul,
On 31/12/20 14:42, Paul Wouters wrote:
On Tue, 29 Dec 2020, Fernando Gont wrote:
So I certainly agree that this is "a really low bar that we should be
already meeting at the IETF in general at this point", and probably
also that "It is obvious to those who care".
But then, may I ask:
1) How you explain the timelines in
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-pearg-numeric-ids-history-04 ?
It seems the tail of the last 15 years all refer to IPv6, so perhaps
that area needs to write up a specific document that allows implementors
to verify their implementation's use of numeric identifiers.
Do I need to repeat the list of sample flawed IDs from that
draft-irtf-pearg-numeric-ids-history-04?
* Predictable TCP ISNs -> NOT IPv6 related
* Predictable transport protocol ephemeral ports -> NOT IPv6 related
* Predictable IPv4 Fragment Identification -> NOT IPv6 related
* Predictable DNS TxIDs -> NOT IPv6 related
* Flawed NTP REF-IDs -> NOT IPv6 related
And one could also add TCP timestamps and others to the list.
So, may I ask, once again, that you read tour I-Ds -- and if you did
read them, that you read them again?
I don't think it helps this discussion if you make claims that one can
easily refute by reading the document.
P.S.: And no, if you read our documents, it should be obvious that our
documents have nothing to do with "compliant tests" for implementers,
but rather with advice for protocol spec authors such that they produce
a proper assessment of their transient numeric identifiers.
Happy New Year!
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
