On 12Nov 2007, at 11:30 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Stephane Bortzmeyer:On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 10:43:06AM +0100, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote a message of 12 lines which said:* a reference (normative?) to RFC 4086 would be a very good idea, with a link from section 9 "Implementations SHOULD use good random sourceto select a Query ID"There is no industry consensus that this is a good idea.What is not a good idea? "Implementations SHOULD use good random source to select a Query ID" or "The draft should add a reference to RFC 4086"?The former. It has been argued that non-repeating query IDs are more important than good randomness. I tried very hard to understand this, but I still don't get it.
Does a sentence like this help clarify: "The (sequence of) Query IDs SHOULD be unpredictable" possibly with the addition off: "e.g. by using a good source of randomness to generate them". Or is your question more fundamental? --Olaf ----------------------------------------------------------- Olaf M. Kolkman NLnet Labs http://www.nlnetlabs.nl/ -- to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>