Re: Consensus call on adopting: <draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-01>

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Ole,

On 05/08/2012 02:42 PM, Ole Trøan wrote:
> The discussion brought up some issues that we will work with the author to
> resolve, in particular:
> 
>  - The current draft is written to not allow the IETF to create derivative works.
>    This is incompatible with the IETF standards process.
>    See section 4 of http://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt

My understanding is that this is perfectly compatible with the IETF
standards process, as long as this restriction is removed before posting
as draft-ietf (for instance, I guess that's why it's allowed in the
first place). (this restriction will be removed in the upcoming
draft-ietf version, accordingly)



>  - The draft should not replace modified EUI-64 IIDs. It intents to provide an alternative to
>    IEEE MAC based modified EUI-64 IIDs.

Agreed.


>    The draft should not update RFC4191 and RFC4862

Agreed. However, it looks like this document should update RFC2464, though.

Thoughts?


>  - The proposed mechanism has merit separately from the perceived "security" benefits,
>    because it creates modified EUI-64 Internet Identifiers that are not IEEE Mac based and
>    eliminates any concern about host tracking based on the IEEE MAC addresses.

I agree with this -- e.g. using the interface index in the hash leads to
stable NIC-independent addresses that don't vary even if you replace the
NIC. Is *this* what I should note in the next rev of the document?

Thanks!

Best regards,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [e-mail] || [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1