Re: [dsfjdssdfsd] specifying an RNG

Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> Sun, 17 November 2013 00:21 UTC

Return-Path: <housley@vigilsec.com>
X-Original-To: dsfjdssdfsd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dsfjdssdfsd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BAC811E80EA for <dsfjdssdfsd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 16:21:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.246
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.246 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SARE_SUB_11CONS_WORD=0.352, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YMUn0q53HFO2 for <dsfjdssdfsd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 16:21:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from odin.smetech.net (mail.smetech.net [209.135.209.4]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F62D11E80E2 for <dsfjdssdfsd@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 16:21:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (unknown [209.135.209.5]) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B349BF2408E; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 19:21:19 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at smetech.net
Received: from odin.smetech.net ([209.135.209.4]) by localhost (ronin.smeinc.net [209.135.209.5]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cCJAUYb-4GVK; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 19:20:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from [192.168.6.24] (ip-64-134-184-113.public.wayport.net [64.134.184.113]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by odin.smetech.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 443A9F2400F; Sat, 16 Nov 2013 19:20:58 -0500 (EST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-164-466036223"
From: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAF4+nEHh8hrjkg-btbQ6rZwqC_OtftdD07ZKP0iByzYU7imPgA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 2013 19:20:45 -0500
Message-Id: <7C7986F2-FDCE-4161-A7AB-D9D870E29BA5@vigilsec.com>
References: <f1fa93561577c1866315495de82b5437.squirrel@www.trepanning.net> <49FF9BED-3844-4D15-8F84-6E7231FE0892@standardstrack.com> <CAF4+nEHh8hrjkg-btbQ6rZwqC_OtftdD07ZKP0iByzYU7imPgA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Cc: dsfjdssdfsd@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dsfjdssdfsd] specifying an RNG
X-BeenThere: dsfjdssdfsd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "The dsfjdssdfsd list provides a venue for discussion of randomness in IETF protocols, for example related to updating RFC 4086." <dsfjdssdfsd.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dsfjdssdfsd>, <mailto:dsfjdssdfsd-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dsfjdssdfsd>
List-Post: <mailto:dsfjdssdfsd@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dsfjdssdfsd-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dsfjdssdfsd>, <mailto:dsfjdssdfsd-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 17 Nov 2013 00:21:35 -0000

Donald:

> RFC 4086, which is on this topic, is a BCP but is out of date and doesn't recommend a specific random number generator.
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-eastlake-randomness3/
> is the start of an effort towards a replacement but needs a lot of work.
> 
> By the way, not that I am arguing for or against it for this case, but it is quite possible for a BCP or IETF standard to consist of a set of RFCs…

In my mind, we should update the BCP and provide an informational document that specifies a mechanism.  I do not think that there is going to be the one true mechanism that applies to every case.

Russ