IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [6lo] I-D Action: draft-ietf-6lo-btle-15.txt

Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org> Mon, 20 July 2015 07:24 UTC

Return-Path: <cabo@tzi.org>
X-Original-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: 6lo@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA2981A0122 for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 00:24:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.55
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.55 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yuGVFgUAbAqN for <6lo@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 00:24:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [IPv6:2001:638:708:30c9::12]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23A471A0111 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 00:24:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at informatik.uni-bremen.de
Received: from submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de [134.102.201.11]) by mailhost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t6K7OWLv006295 for <6lo@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 09:24:32 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from alma.local (dhcp-987d.meeting.ietf.org [31.133.152.125]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by submithost.informatik.uni-bremen.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3mZZLm3kwpzD38f; Mon, 20 Jul 2015 09:24:32 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <55ACA22E.3080006@tzi.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 09:24:30 +0200
From: Carsten Bormann <cabo@tzi.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 4.0.1 (Macintosh/20150514)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: 6lo@ietf.org
References: <20150720070208.4584.36904.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20150720070208.4584.36904.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2.3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/6lo/0i72jkm9ceG83SDfR1FcpYm6lug>
Subject: Re: [6lo] I-D Action: draft-ietf-6lo-btle-15.txt
X-BeenThere: 6lo@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Mailing list for the 6lo WG for Internet Area issues in IPv6 over constrained node networks." <6lo.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/6lo/>
List-Post: <mailto:6lo@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo>, <mailto:6lo-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 07:24:36 -0000

Thanks for the new draft.

Again, we have to be careful what exactly we are saying here.

The question is not whether MAC addresses are randomly generated, the
question is how trackable they are.  If they are randomly generated at
manufacturing time, that is only barely better than the OUI-based method.

Grüße, Carsten

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email