Re: [Int-dir] 118

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 17/04/2019 à 16:24, Eric Gray a écrit :
> Adding to what Joel said, why are we attempting to define how long a MAC address SHOULD be?

We are attempting to define how long a better privacy Interface ID (not 
MAC) should be.

There is a difference between an Interface ID and a MAC address.

An Interface ID is what to put near a prefix to make an address.  For 
example, 3 in 192.168.1.3 is an Interface ID.

The longer IID the better privacy, intuitively speaking.

Why do you think we try to define how long a MAC address should be?

Alex

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ietf <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 9:39 AM
> To: Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>
> Cc: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>; IETF Discussion <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: 118
> 
> Trimmed.
> 
> On 4/17/19 3:46 AM, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
> ....
>>
>> I propose the following:
>> OLD:
>>>        A randomized Interface ID has the same characteristics of a
>>>        randomized MAC address, except the length in bits.  A MAC
>>>        address SHOULD be of length 48 decimal.  An Interface ID
>>>        SHOULD be of length 64 decimal for all types of IPv6
>>>        addresses.  In the particular case of IPv6 link-local
>>>        addresses, the length of the Interface ID MAY be 118
>>>        decimal.
>>
>> NEW:
>>>        A randomized Interface ID has the same characteristics of a
>>>        randomized MAC address, except the length in bits.  A MAC
>>>        address SHOULD be of length 48 decimal.  An Interface ID
>>>        SHOULD be of length specified in other documents.
>>
>> Do you disagree?
> 
> "SHOULD be of a length specified in other documents" wihtout any reference to what the other documents are or how to find them seems like a recipe for implementor error.  Can we be somewhat more specific?
> 
> Thank you,
> Joel
>