review of draft-ietf-6man-default-iids

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Tue, 04 March 2014 16:46 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE5381A01EE for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 08:46:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.029
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.029 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, T_MIME_NO_TEXT=0.01, T_TVD_MIME_NO_HEADERS=0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6vw82Cp3uNcf for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 08:46:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (unknown [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3F2FA1A0204 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 08:46:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FA6A20093 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 13:05:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: by sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id D8AA6647C9; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 11:46:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id C679F63B88 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 4 Mar 2014 11:46:33 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: review of draft-ietf-6man-default-iids
X-Attribution: mcr
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.2; nmh 1.3-dev; GNU Emacs 23.4.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 11:46:33 -0500
Message-ID: <12956.1393951593@sandelman.ca>
Sender: mcr@sandelman.ca
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/5nO3xLkuPu0GxqmcKvLSrp4-lFM
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 04 Mar 2014 16:46:41 -0000

I had objections at IETF88 to deprecating the schemes given in [RFC2464],
[RFC2467], and [RFC2470].  They are used in LLNs and are important for
humans to be able to connect network identities to physical devices.

I have reviewed draft-ietf-6man-default-iids, and I'm satisfied that it
deals with my concerns, and I think it is ready to be published.

(I too, however, would rather it was combined with
draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-17, and maybe this could occur in
AUTH48..)

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting for hire =-