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

["Dan Harkins" <[e-mail]>]

  Paul,

On Mon, January 20, 2014 5:28 pm, Paul Hoffman wrote:
> On Jan 20, 2014, at 5:53 PM, Donald Eastlake <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> I've been a bit snowed under just recently and this week but I have
>> accumulated some changes and suggestions on the randomness requirement
>> sod security draft and do plan to do a revision soon.
>
> It would be good to see those revisions. It still feels very wrong for us
> to be suggesting to application developers that they should be doing their
> own randomness; they should be asking their OS unless they are experts,
> and those experts don't need an RFC.

  "Ask your OS" is putting faith in the guy that wrote the relevant code
in your OS. It might be a reasonable leap but it's a leap nevertheless.
Recent events should tell us that we should not trust a single source for
these things (even if we are told that this single source is actually the
output of a bunch of uncorrelated sources of entropy being mixed up).

  I see value in draft-eastlake-randomness3 and I also see value in an
Informational RFC on a good DRBG for those who feel the need to have
a belt as well as suspenders.

  Dan.