Subject: [tsvwg] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-tsvwg-tinymt32-03: (with COMMENT)

From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2019 03:07:14 -0700

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tsvwg-tinymt32-03: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tsvwg-tinymt32/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

— Abstract —

   The main
   advantage of TinyMT32 over MT is the use of a small internal state,
   compatible with most target platforms including embedded devices,
   while keeping a reasonably good randomness.

The difference between “most target platforms including embedded devices,” and
“most target platforms, including embedded devices,” is too subtle to be sure
that readers get the meaning right.  I think the sentence would be clearer if
it said, “most target platforms that include embedded devices,”.

— Section 1 —

   the quality of the outputs of TinyMT
   seems pretty good in terms of randomnes

Make it “randomness”.

   However, neither the TinyMT
   nor MT PRNG are meant to be used for cryptographic applications.

This seems a bit more buried than it should be, as it’s important.  I suggest
putting some version of this in the Abstract, and also moving it more toward
the beginning of the Introduction (probably in the first paragraph.