Hi there, > Just focus on the problem you're trying to solve, and provide references where > necessary. >
Ok :-) > > > IMO, reason "1" is void: If an implementer is going through the effort of > implementing this document, he/she'd rather implement a god PRNG. > > Regarding "2", do you realy need stable storage? -- we're talking about 64-bit > IIDs here. > > Besides, there are IPRs on the CGA algorithm... but RFC4941 itself doesn't have > any. SO this document would essentially IPR-encumber > RFC4941 -- the farther that you can get from that, the better, I'd say. :-) CGA has IPR but it does not prevent the implementation of it. So, no worry about that. In addition, this algorithm is pseudo-CGA as I had to change some inputs so nobody can claim about IPR for this algorithm. :-) Thanks again, Best, Hosnieh -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
