RE: pppcn

From James Carlson:

> All that needs to be done is guarantee that someone who 
> doesn't know a shared secret cannot predict the 'random' 
> portions of the message.  For example, generate a cryptographic 
> hash based on a shared secret and the challenge used in the 
> last session (saved in some local storage), and use that 
> hash as the challenge string.

Ummmm, this must mean that both peers need to agree on the mechanism for
generating the next challenge.

In which case, for there to be interoperability between peers, this
mechanism must be a widely understood protocol of some sort, and so I would
have thought that there would be grounds for publishing it as an RFC.

Jonathan Goodchild