Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-gont-numeric-ids-sec-considerations-06.txt> (Security Considerations for Transient Numeric Identifiers Employed in Network Protocols) to Best Current Practice

["Iván Arce (Quarkslab)" <[e-mail]>]

On 12/18/20 1:02 AM, Joe Touch wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Dec 17, 2020, at 7:03 PM, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>> I think we have gone through this before. Folks (including you) raise objections. I note that the claim has no basis or ask a question which clearly shows the objection has no basis, and they omit the question, stop responding, or switch to something else.
> 
> We do, because our input has need ignored (again) and we have better things to do. 
> 

You have provided no constructive criticism, have not proposed any text
to deal with your objections or concerns, or to improve the draft in any
other way and have simply argued that the draft shouldnt be published
period.

The total sum of your input is "do not publish this".

We have not ignored it, we have engaged in a discussion replying to
every objection to publication with arguments and examples, we have
suggested text to address your concerns about IoT devices that cant
possibly have an RNG, and other's concerns as well but none of those
efforts seem sufficient or acceptable.

The ignoring seem to be somewhere else.

I've spent every email on this thread trying to explain why the draft
should published instead of discussing how to make it better.

I have better things to do as well.

/ivan


-- 
Iván Arce
CTO - Security Analysis
Quarkslab