Meta comment about "3484bis and privacy addresses"

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Folks,

I think that one error in which we have incurred at least in the couple
of years (myself included) is that we focus our discussion on
"mac-derived addresses vs privacy addresses" when the question should
really be about "stable addresses vs. temporary addresses".

Clearly, we don't want any privacy issues (whether temporary or not),
and we should do something such that all addresses do not have any
privacy issues. (FWIW, this
<http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses> is
my proposal to tackle the problem of the privacy issues arising from our
current "stable" mac-derived addresses).

It is also clear that some folks may be arguing in favor of temporary
addresses (RFC 4941) for the wrong reasons (albeit understandable):
because we lack of stable addresses that do not have privacy issues.

So I tend to think that our debate should probably be about "stable vs.
temporary addresses", but our discussion is kind of blinded by the fact
that we currently only have "stable but privacy-harmful addresses" on
one hand, and "temporary and privacy-improved addresses" on the other.

*This* fact is what has turned our discussion into being about "public
versus privacy address", when it shouldn't: privacy should never be
compromised.

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