Re: last call comments for draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-06

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Christian,

On 04/23/2013 12:02 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
> After reading the document again, the main issue is that the document
> specifies a solution to a problem by detailing a specific
> implementation,

I personally disagree (see below).


> but does not explain the design choices behind that
> solution. As such, we end up with an over constrained specification,
> which at the same time fails to explain the problems at hand.

Could you please elaborate?



> As Mike St-Johns pointed out, the solution is trivial:

Can you post an URL for such comment? -- Because I've not been able to
find anything sent by Mike along those lines.


[....]
> Instead, the draft goes into great details on how to actually
> implement the random number generator. 

I disagree. In the draft, F() is the PRF. Where in the I-D are we trying
to provide details on how to implement F()?


> Apart from not being
> necessary, some of these details are wrong. For example, the
> suggested algorithm includes an "interface index," but different
> operating systems have different ways of enumerating interfaces, and
> the variations in enumeration could end up violating the "stable
> address" property.

Which vaiations are you referring to?

(FWIW, this I-D does not require any particular namespeace fr the
INterface Index).



> I would also explain the inherent issues that have to be solved,
> e.g., swapping interfaces, or enabling multi-homed hosts.

FWIW, constant addreses when swapping interfaces is not really a goal f
tis dcument, but rather a byproduct of it.


> And I would
> observe that the DAD problem cannot be solved ina  reliable way.

Could you please elaborate?

Thanks!

Best regards,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492