Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-gont-numeric-ids-sec-considerations-06

Fernando Gont <> Thu, 07 January 2021 06:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81FF83A0957; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 22:21:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.161
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.161 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.262, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VCWzw70tVfUp; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 22:21:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5DAA33A0981; Wed, 6 Jan 2021 22:21:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8C7E4283833; Thu, 7 Jan 2021 06:21:35 +0000 (UTC)
To: Gyan Mishra <>,
References: <>
From: Fernando Gont <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2021 03:21:05 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-gont-numeric-ids-sec-considerations-06
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 06:21:45 -0000

Hello, Gyan,

Thanks a lot for your feedback! In-line....

On 7/1/21 02:27, Gyan Mishra via Datatracker wrote:
> Summary:
> This document updates RFC 3552 Security Considerations for Transient numeric
> identifiers employed in network protocols. Currently RFC 3552 does not address
> transient network identifiers exploitation by pervasive monitoring.

Note: we're not targeting, specifically, pervasive monitoring.

We're essentially targeting security and privacy implications of 
transient numeric IDs in general. -- their implications are currently 
not covered by RFC3552.

Of course, some transient numeric IDs could certainly be exploited at 
mass scale.

> Minor issues:
> My suggestion is to maybe have examples section similar to RFC 3552 that gives
> examples of the security implications of the various types of transient numeric
> identifiers. An example for IPv6 IID would be using modified EUI64 versus RFC
> 4941 privacy extension or even RFC 7217 / RFC 8064 stable IID.

Do you have in mind something like what's in Section 8 (and subsections) 

If so, and provided others agree, we can move (or copy) that section 
into this document.

Thanks, and Happy New Year!
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492