Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-11.txt

"weigengyu" <weigengyu@bupt.edu.cn> Wed, 25 May 2016 02:58 UTC

Return-Path: <weigengyu@bupt.edu.cn>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 634FC12D1C0 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2016 19:58:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.888
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.888 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001, STOX_REPLY_TYPE=0.439] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 cCaiFTvK1Jrz for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 24 May 2016 19:58:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.bupt.edu.cn (mx1.bupt.edu.cn [211.68.68.2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D019A12D0FD for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 May 2016 19:58:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.bupt.edu.cn (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by mx1.bupt.edu.cn (AnyMacro(G7)) with SMTP id 7BC5C19F404 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 May 2016 10:58:30 +0800 (HKT)
Received: from WeiGengyuPC (unknown [114.255.40.27]) by mx1.bupt.edu.cn (AnyMacro(G7)) with ESMTPA id CA3E519F3DC; Wed, 25 May 2016 10:58:29 +0800 (HKT)
Message-ID: <E87615B9D8A8479CB545BA12980A7225@WeiGengyuPC>
From: weigengyu <weigengyu@bupt.edu.cn>
To: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
References: <20160428004904.25189.43047.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CD39E9F1-4060-4884-91B3-5A974C3FFFF7@cooperw.in> <8E1CCE051EDF4491953D6E093809DA68@WeiGengyuPC> <2157FA8F808D4997BBF9AECD1B8DA52A@WeiGengyuPC> <0d4da5aa-ff7b-6d90-8a9e-f4cf5f2fe50f@gmail.com> <573BD140.8000607@si6networks.com>
In-Reply-To: <573BD140.8000607@si6networks.com>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-11.txt
Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 10:58:29 +0800
Organization: BUPT
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="UTF-8"; reply-type="original"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 16.4.3528.331
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V16.4.3528.331
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/pAIfSUcQot4I3cpwnonhql2jYTk>
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 25 May 2016 02:58:33 -0000

Hi Fernando,

Would you please provide the published refereces of Alfred Hoenes -- IIRC, a 
mathematician.
IIRC, he noted that a hash function is simply one possible way of a PRF.

It is interested for the proof of Hash function to be a PRF.

Regards,

Gengyu WEI
Network Technology Center
School of Computer
Beijing University of Posts and Telecommunications
-----原始邮件----- 
From: Fernando Gont
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2016 10:19 AM
To: Brian E Carpenter ; weigengyu
Cc: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-11.txt

On 05/16/2016 04:08 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> Hi Gengyu,
>
>>> RID is not random or random identifier according to the context above.
>>>
>>> F() is an inreverse function, not a pseudorandom function.
>
> I agree that this is incorrect use of terminology; an irreversible hash is
> not mathematically equivalent to a pseudo-random number generator. But the
> effect is the same: an attacker has no way to predict the next F(x) or to
> obtain the value of x. As far as practical engineering goes, F() can be 
> treated
> as a random number. So I don't see why this invalidates the use of RFC 
> 7217.
>
> You could submit an erratum for RFC 7217 at 
> http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata.php#reportnew
> so that the terminology can be corrected when the document is updated.

FWIW, the term "PRF" (as *opposed*) to PRNG was suggested by Alfred
Hoenes -- IIRC, a mathematician. IIRC, he noted that a hash function is
simply one possible way of a PRF.


-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492