Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-templin-duid-ipv6-01.txt

Bernie - go read my previous message responses. My text entered previously was
not intended to be "write-only"; it was intended to be read and commented on also.

Fred

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernie Volz (volz) [mailto:volz@cisco.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 7:50 AM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
> Cc: Simon Hobson <linux@thehobsons.co.uk>; Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>; dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>; IPv6 List
> <ipv6@ietf.org>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: I-D Action: draft-templin-duid-ipv6-01.txt
> 
> EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments.
> 
> 
> 
> Fred:
> 
> You are clearly not answering our questions. As I said, put DUID-EN aside. Why are the others not usable. Under what conditions
> should a DHCP client implementer use DUID-V6ADDR (and under what conditions MUST NOT it be used).
> 
> There are clear reasons for having the various forms we do have and there are statements as to when a particular one must not be
> used.
> 
> We could have many more DUID types, but we don't because there have to be clear reasons to have a new type ... and for that you
> need to explain why the existing types CANNOT be used and thus a new type is REQUIRED. This is why the bar for defining a new type
> was Standards Actions - we wanted it to be very high so that it is fully clear as to when one type should be used over another.
> 
> For example, if you said well my interfaces have no "link-layer addresses", that would rule out DUID-LL and DUID-LLT. It does leave
> DUID-UUID (and DUID-EN - but we can put that aside). So, perhaps then there's a reason why DUID-UUID cannot be used (perhaps no
> storage in which to record this). This then would mean none of the (-LL, -LLT, -UUID) could work.
> 
> But just to say "hey, I have an idea to use this for a DUID" isn't sufficient without the details of why it is REQUIRED and none of the
> existing types can be used.
> 
> - Bernie
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 10:40 AM
> To: Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com>
> Cc: Simon Hobson <linux@thehobsons.co.uk>; Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>; dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>; IPv6 List
> <ipv6@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-templin-duid-ipv6-01.txt
> 
> It is clear from these last three that people are not reading all of my responses; especially those in response to Bob Hinden's questions
> where the use case is clearly explained.
> Perhaps you are hoping that by asking the same question over and over again I will give a different answer. Please go back and read
> *all* of the posts; it is not a good use for any of our time for me to repeat myself over and over again.
> 
> Fred
> 
> PS Bernie and Ted - I have already explained why DUID-EN was considered but found to be too cumbersome and a DOWNREF.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bernie Volz (volz) [mailto:volz@cisco.com]
> > Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 6:48 AM
> > To: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
> > Cc: Simon Hobson <linux@thehobsons.co.uk>; dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>;
> > IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
> > Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Re: I-D Action: draft-templin-duid-ipv6-01.txt
> >
> > Fred:
> >
> > I agree with Simon.
> >
> > You have not explained why you cannot use one of the existing methods
> > - even putting aside DUID-EN. Why can you not use DUID-LL, DUID-LLT, or DUID-UUID?
> >
> > And, with DUID-EN, you can do whatever you want without anyone's input
> > - of course, whether that usage is a good idea is a separate question.
> > Yes, it may have a few additional bytes more than DUID-V6ADDR, but that hardly seems like a useful argument at this point as we
> still don't know why this is better than the existing DUID types for a STANDARDIZED type.
> >
> > I still see no text in the 00 or 01 draft about why you need this over
> > the existing methods - i.e., why none of the existing methods will work.
> >
> > The other thing about a standardized DUID is that you have to assure
> > it is not misused or misunderstood how it should be used. So, you need to be clear about when it MAY be used and when it MUST
> NOT be used.
> >
> > - Bernie
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dhcwg <dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Simon Hobson
> > Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 9:08 AM
> > To: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>; IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
> > Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [EXTERNAL] Re: I-D Action:
> > draft-templin-duid-ipv6-01.txt
> >
> > Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> No. I questioned the purpose of having an IPv6 address in something that’s supposed to be an opaque identifier.
> > >
> > > And, I said that if it were *truly* opaque to *all* examinations and
> > > references, then there would only ever be *one* DUID type for all
> > > time. But, RFC8415 clearly shows that multiple DUID types are
> > > defined and that new ones can be added through future standards action.
> >
> > Ah, you are starting from a false premise there.
> >
> > Just because something is opaque and never ever (in theory) used in
> > any way other than "X == Y" doesn't mean there's no reason to only ever have one method of creating it.
> > As the idea of DUID is that it should be globally unique, ideally the
> > method used to create it should have the most sources of entropy
> > possible. But different devices have different constraints. That's why
> > we have LL and LLT since adding time of creation to the pot adds entropy, thus making LLT 'better' than LL, but some devices don't
> have a clock (and possibly, no persistent storage) making LLT unfeasible for them - i.e. LL is inferior to LLT, but real world constraints
> make it necessary.
> >
> > So here the difference between LL and LLT is easy to see, as are the constraints that might force you to use the inferior one.
> >
> > What people are asking you is : what makes this proposal so much
> > better than what's already allowed, given that's what's in there is
> > supposed to be opaque and so "it's an IPv6 address" has no bearing on
> > it's "goodness" as a unique identifier. And more specifically, why is it better than an RFC4122 UUID as defined in RFC6355 - 'better'
> meaning sufficiently better to justify adding to the global code base required to support it.
> >
> > Both are 16 octets/128 bits long, both are intended to be globally
> > unique, both require persistent storage available to early boot loaders. So why is the proposed 128bit value better than the already
> defined 128bit value ?
> >
> > Simon
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dhcwg mailing list
> > dhcwg@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg