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

[weddy at grc.nasa.gov]

On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 01:13:31PM -0500, Mark Allman wrote:
>  
>   - The response function has a bunch of knobs.  But, there is really no
>     guidance on turning those knobs.  Some of the results in the papers
>     referenced do deal with turning those knobs.  But, it seems to me
>     that this is such a key facet of an implementation that the draft
>     needs to help an implementer understand how sensitive those knobs
>     are.  This pertains to the last point.  If the document intends for
>     these to be constants and not knobs (i.e., MUSTs) then this concern
>     at least diminishes quite a bit, if not going away.  But, if these
>     are not supposed to be hard-and-fast then the document really needs
>     to help an implementer understand the impact of various tunings.


Since 3 reviewers have now noted this, it's starting to sound like the
RG is expressing a concern about lightly-documented parameters.  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?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://oakham.cs.ucl.ac.uk/pipermail/iccrg/attachments/20071129/ac3325db/attachment.bin