RE: comments on draft-huitema-6man-random-addresses-00

Christian Huitema <huitema@microsoft.com> Tue, 14 July 2015 20:51 UTC

From: Christian Huitema <huitema@microsoft.com>
To: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Subject: RE: comments on draft-huitema-6man-random-addresses-00
Thread-Topic: comments on draft-huitema-6man-random-addresses-00
Thread-Index: AQHQvnLaJwurB6TJ10W3w8qWjcBGDp3bbFpQ
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 20:51:32 +0000
Message-ID: <DM2PR0301MB0655B59CE04B77E328ABD5BDA89B0@DM2PR0301MB0655.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
References: <CAJE_bqfELzqnujW80isz18RMErZ_8C+m6x+c4h_zVHjZtydqPw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJE_bqfELzqnujW80isz18RMErZ_8C+m6x+c4h_zVHjZtydqPw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 14 Jul 2015 20:51:32.5500 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: DM2PR0301MB0654
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/3JnYVSgssS3eQiUERT9xfh1GP6E>
Cc: IPv6 IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 20:51:36 -0000


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com] On Behalf
> Of ????
On Tuesday, July 14, 2015 1:23 PM, Jinmei Tatuya wrote:
> - Section 3.4:
> 
>    Tracking over time is prevented if the Net_IFace parameter is set to
>    the current link layer address.  In that case, the stable addresses
>    will have exactly the same lifetime as the link-layer identifiers.
>    This SHOULD be the default solution for mobile hosts.
> 
>   I'm afraid this SHOULD could violate the sense of a MUST regarding
>   Net_Iface of RFC7217:
> 
>    o  It MUST be constant across system bootstrap sequences and other
>       network events (e.g., bringing another interface up or down).

Yes, that's a direct contradiction, and it should be presented as such. Definitely something to do better in the next version of the draft.

The problem is that RFC 7217 values stability and tries very hard to keep the IID constant, while privacy requires that the IID changes each time the user decides to hide. 

>   ...
> 
>   I'm not making this comment to mean we cannot say that it SHOULD be
>   the default, but I think it would be helpful if the draft mentions
>   the implication and (if necessary) states that this draft updates
>   RFC7217 in that the sense of a MUST is now loosened.

Yes.  Will do that.

> - The draft uses the term "link-local" many times.  I suspect it
>   should actually be "link-layer".  One example is this:
> 
>    Using randomized link-local addresses doesn't change that.
>    (Section 3.2)
> 
> - A very minor editorial nit: Section 3.5, second paragraph:
>   s/is a host/if a host/
>   s/configure but doen't use/configures but doesn't use/
> 
>    [...]  This is
>    also true is a host uses temporary addresses and configure but doen't
>    use a stable address.  The address configuration will require

Thanks.

-- Christian Huitema

comments on draft-huitema-6man-random-addresses-00 神明達哉
RE: comments on draft-huitema-6man-random-address… Christian Huitema