[Iccrg] ctcp review: big picture issues (3 of 4)

[Michael Welzl]

On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 14:18 -0800, Lachlan Andrew wrote:
> On 29/11/2007, weddy at grc.nasa.gov <weddy at grc.nasa.gov> wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 01:13:31PM -0500, Mark Allman wrote:
> > Would it be correct to say that we think for a scheme to be called "safe for
> > production Internet use" that its parameters need to all be accompanied
> > by some particular values or guidance on a range of values?
> 
> Yep, I'd vote for that as a requirement.  The range could be specified
> as "arbitrary", provided there was a justification that "arbitrary"
> values are safe.

I'd also vote for that.

Cheers,
Michael