Re: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-piraux-quic-additional-addresses-00.txt

[David Schinazi <[e-mail]>]

Yes, this comes to mind:
https://xkcd.com/221/
Otherwise, I suggest being lazy like me:
https://www.google.com/search?q=random+number+between+268435456+and+1073741823

David

On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 1:46 PM Christian Huitema <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> On 10/18/2022 8:28 AM, David Schinazi wrote:
>
> Hi Michael,
>
> While MT's comment might sound nitpicky, he's right in suggesting people
> use real PNRGs because we've already had collisions due to human-picked
> numbers in the past. The fact that quic-multipath made the same mistake
> doesn't make it best practice. (And FWIW I'm also guilty of having made
> that mistake in the past).
>
> I am very much guilty of that too. Mnemonic are nice.  In the past,
> collision between mnemonics was dealt with by simply looking in the
> provisional registry in the WG wiki. That's something we lost when we moved
> to an IANA registry, because there is a longer delay between use in an
> experiment and publication in an IANA registry than just updating a wiki.
> The risk of collision increases. That has to be compensated somehow. But
> there is something else. Experiments are for learning. Drafts changes. The
> good practice is to use some form of versioning -- definitely change the
> Transport Parameter value if you are negotiating something different than
> the original draft. Change the frame id if the syntax changes. Etc. So you
> don't want to just use 0x1337 or 0xdada, you will want 0x1337xx, or
> 0xdadaxx. That kind of diminishes the user friendliness of mnemonics.
>
> On the other hand, I am not sure that mnemonics are more collision prone
> than values picked by bad number generators. "Use a random generator" is
> likely to end up with python scripts like:
>
> import sys
> import random
>
> random.seed(sys.argv[1])
> print(hex(random.randrange(64,0x100000)))
>
> That's not exactly collision proof either...
>
> -- Christian Huitema
>
>
>
>
> David
>
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 2:28 AM Michael Eriksson <michael.eriksson=
> [e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2022 at 11:13:24 +1100, Martin Thomson wrote:
>>  > I see this in the draft:
>>  >
>>  > "TBD - experiments use 0xadda"
>>  >
>>  > I find it hard to believe that this value was chosen at random.
>>  > Please consult a random number generator for these values. And -
>>  > while you are developing proposals - larger values might be more
>>  > appropriate.
>>
>> That was a pretty nitpicky comment... Have you read
>> draft-ietf-quic-multipath? The 0xbabaXX constants don't look very
>> random if you consider the affiliation of the first authors.
>>
>> Also, what is a "large" value? 0xadda is big enough to require a
>> 32-bit VarInt.
>>
>> /me
>>
>