[Tsvwg] table size (was Re: WGLC for Port Randomization starts now (April 1st))

[Mark Allman <[e-mail]>]

> >   - Section 3.3.4: It'd be nice to see some reasoning about why a table
> >     size of 1024 is being recommended.  It seems like this is
> >     arbitrarily pulled out of the air.  I think it'd be fine to leave
> >     this to the implementer.  I.e., note that [Allman] shows 10 entries
> >     will work fine for collision avoidance and increasing the table size
> >     increases the obfuscation and leave it at that.  If you pick a
> >     number then at least motivate it somehow.
> 
> I agree with you. The 1024 value is pulled out of the air. The point
> is that for a general purpose system, because of memory availability
> and cost, you probably won't choose a table size in such a
> fine-grained way.  But... this is me being pragmatic and
> non-academic. Also, a value of 10 was enough for that *specific*
> network scenario/traffic (this is something that should be clarified,
> btw)... that's why I'd personally pick a larger number.

I think my formulation is better:

   I.e., note that [Allman] shows 10 entries will work fine for
   collision avoidance [to the extent that the data in [Allman] has legs
   outside those environments, of course] and increasing the table size
   increases the obfuscation and leave it at that.

That doesn't say "don't increase the number".  That just says what we
know.  You, Fernando, then choosing 1024 is perfectly fine if that is
where your comfort level is.  I am not quibbling with your particular
gut feeling here.  I just don't see why we should encode that in the
document. 

allman