Re: [Int-dir] Review of draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids-03

Charlie Perkins <> Mon, 16 January 2017 15:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDD86129575; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 07:23:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.919
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key); domainkeys=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QalgOI3JQtRz; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 07:23:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3AAB112957A; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 07:23:24 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=dk12062016; t=1484580205; bh=LowWybMEldKGm0XZK6NVGH5UAS31dX5MeAfI nwv/Om0=; h=Received:Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Message-ID:Date: User-Agent:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; b=B9WZObd KkjgqneSpspTwxQdRkXMr91YgJZclgFwcnpmswv8L1qsgHNogkqxV7uMaNxswvRbJaW 6OUB2r5DvlwkxZTdLASLpAEAx05/QGhUJIRAWWcxig1jG0yR4UmoDFPRyLv9iJXT4Q3 QLW0Ah6LfbLdZ0Y2wkQ9JIll5MpWHzUOM5RdDgYLL/ZpDhaw5SKiDULHK/rMZ+BHS1Z sFgYMFKYCbwmFjj3gtUvHt/xJ7rbMldkKLjma6MruOiRSpyq/ruQgOnVyLea7wH+wic BRG4MAAhWtPYK0Y6UCmUmFvYciUV5GWeYqbOV0WrgHbrLTE3hKC69gN6Bqer7lupJ8A ==
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk12062016;; b=CxcKIQE+rbY5M69iGKGoCM65HU8rhWuOEZBEtIj8bf750wM7zrg8jhPMBM8OGzeaxMySZfZLNz+JwxpOsAT16rowSOb5qD1226MIhLbAYvuBMXowAjq4XhVD7JrbNbhxu5pIev0ZeSrlUEacI1DDkhTst7OnaCQhV6a4Q6c3Xwe3755K16QJh1GoR/dg8ounefTrctbWFC8hgj09r5cbqA4E73l1PF1bvPFGr96JP/Ajm725VoPbhy1VfdWl3gXCoQQYbRPjmg2xnnEDOE5VfN0FcfveKFCDvxC95J900giOAHPJkAjh3/25+s8Sr1nfffyegd3Z/fby1tP+8JzqqQ==; h=Received:Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Message-ID:Date:User-Agent:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [] (helo=[]) by with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <>) id 1cT97Z-00008O-GB; Mon, 16 Jan 2017 10:22:57 -0500
Subject: Re: [Int-dir] Review of draft-ietf-dmm-4283mnids-03
To: Tatuya Jinmei <>,
References: <> <>
From: Charlie Perkins <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 07:22:56 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-ELNK-Trace: 137d7d78656ed6919973fd6a8f21c4f2d780f4a490ca6956527bd5036cbc8ac7ee6371292b8aa9a368b813cb26a0354c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2017 15:23:31 -0000

Hello again Tatuya,

Here is an updated description of the IPv6 address type when used as a MNID:

> 4.1.  Description of the IPv6 address type
>     The IPv6 address [RFC4291] is encoded as a 16 octet string containing
>     the full IPv6 address.  The IPv6 address MUST be a unicast routable
>     IPv6 address.  Multicast addresses, link-local addresses, and the
>     unspecified IPv6 address MUST NOT be used.  IPv6 Unique Local
>     Addresses (ULAs) MAY be used, as long as any security operations
>     making use of the ULA also take into account the domain in which the
>     ULA is guaranteed to be unique.

Please let me know if this resolves your concern.

Charlie P.

On 1/15/2017 9:08 PM, Charlie Perkins wrote:
> Hello Tatuya,
> Thank you for the careful review.  Follow-up below:
> On 1/6/2017 11:08 AM, Tatuya Jinmei wrote:
>> - Section 4.1: I guess the MNID is generally supposed to be unique
>> (at
>>    least in the realm the ID is used), but not all IPv6 addresses are
>>    guaranteed to be unique (a link-local or unspecified address is an
>>    obvious example, an ULA may also be inappropriate depending on the
>>    usage context).  It may be better to note the fact, and you may
>> also
>>    want to impose some restrictions on the type of address that can be
>>    used as an MNID.
> This is correct.  I will fashion some language as suggested.  I think 
> it is appropriate to allow ULAs, but multicast and unspecified 
> addresses seem clearly inappropriate, and I am i favor of disallowing 
> link-local addresses.