Re: [dsfjdssdfsd] Any plans for drafts or discussions on here?

Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr> Thu, 23 January 2014 09:34 UTC

Return-Path: <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
X-Original-To: dsfjdssdfsd@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dsfjdssdfsd@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04CE51A0349 for <dsfjdssdfsd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 01:34:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.087
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.087 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id v8AUFp_8HSxy for <dsfjdssdfsd@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 01:34:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (givry.fdupont.fr [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:6d55:211:5bff:fe98:d51e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBF3A1A0357 for <dsfjdssdfsd@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 01:34:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id s0N9Ycqu015366; Thu, 23 Jan 2014 10:34:38 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr)
Message-Id: <201401230934.s0N9Ycqu015366@givry.fdupont.fr>
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
To: "Dan Harkins" <dharkins@lounge.org>
In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 22 Jan 2014 17:36:31 PST. <82535cea19e2c6434090b94565e652f5.squirrel@www.trepanning.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 10:34:38 +0100
Sender: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr
Cc: dsfjdssdfsd@ietf.org, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
Subject: Re: [dsfjdssdfsd] Any plans for drafts or discussions on here?
X-BeenThere: dsfjdssdfsd@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 09:34:42 -0000

 In your previous mail you wrote:

>    If you take the executable from Solaris and copy it onto your HP-UX
>  machine it will not run.

=> it depends: this is true (i.e., won't run) for an application
written in C/C++, but false (i.e., will run) for an application
written in python or ocaml. So there is another level between
binary and source code compatibilities.
 To come back to the main subject, as an application developer I have
the choice between the OS, the crypto library (e.g., OpenSSL) and
home made to provide a (P)RNG/(D/N)RBG to be used to generate
not predictable (BTW it is nearly always prediction resistance,
not backtracking resistance :-) values (e.g., transaction IDs),
and to generate crypto material (I cite the two because constraints
are very different, for instance for not predictable values
I really want a not blocking solution).

>    My point was that there were not 3 sources (Paul mentioned 3)
>  available to an application, there is just one: the one that's part of
>  OS that the application happened to be compiled for.

=> I should have said "to run over" (BTW with virtualization it is
not so trivial...)

>  > => change your application developer?
>  
>    Ha, ha. Funny. I have considered firing myself several times.
>  
>    The issue was not the code I was writing, it is the annoying habit of
>  linux driver developers to change data structures (the one in question
>  was for an 802.11 device) in gratuitous ways that cause breakage. I
>  have never had that problem with freeBSD. In fact, the inability of an
>  application to just compile from one OS release to another is touted
>  as a feature by some of the more zealous linux people.

=> I'd like to join you as an old BSD man in Linux zealot bashing
(e.g., it is not a gratuitous change: they just never read the previous
code until they get conflicts from multiple definitions with the same
name :-) but we shall be off topic...

Regards

Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr