I sent the following message over six months ago, but the draft was not updated, and instead expired.
Are people on this list interested in starting a different draft that obsoletes 4086 by giving more modern advice? I would be willing to edit but not contribute a lot of text; others here might want to contribute lots of text. --Paul Hoffman On Jan 20, 2014, at 5:28 PM, Paul Hoffman <[email protected]> wrote: > On Jan 20, 2014, at 5:53 PM, Donald Eastlake <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I've been a bit snowed under just recently and this week but I have >> accumulated some changes and suggestions on the randomness requirement >> sod security draft and do plan to do a revision soon. > > It would be good to see those revisions. It still feels very wrong for us to > be suggesting to application developers that they should be doing their own > randomness; they should be asking their OS unless they are experts, and those > experts don't need an RFC. _______________________________________________ dsfjdssdfsd mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dsfjdssdfsd
