Re: [secdir] Secdir review of draft-ietf-tsvwg-port-randomization-06.txt

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Lars,

> when you make some of the text changes that Charlie suggested, please
> make them in a way that doesn't break what the document says about
> [Allman]. (Mark Allman ran some tests with some of the algorithms in
> this document, and if we change their description retroactively, it
> may affect what we can say about his effort.)

I don't think the resulting changes would affect the results in
[Allman]. For instance, I'd bet the random() function he used provided
32-bit pseudo-random numbers (rathern than 16-bit numbers, as previously
suggested in the I-D).



>>> The document is titled "Transport Protocol Port Randomization 
>>> Recommendations", but it doesn't really make recommendations. It 
>>> enumerates current practice and calls out the pros and cons, but
>>> it doesn't really recommend what an implementer should do. That's
>>>  probably OK, but it seemed a bit odd.
> 
> this came up during the WG discussion. If I remember correctly, the
> document is the way it is because the WG felt that multiple schemes
> work well, and because this is not something that requires
> interoperability, there was no strong need to pick a "winner".

I didn't apply any change in response to this. (Just for the record, *I*
would have been happier with the document recommending a particular
algorithm... but I do see the point of why the wg didn't think so).

Thanks!

Kind regards,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [e-mail] || [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1