Meta comment about "3484bis and privacy addresses"

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Tue, 27 March 2012 12:57 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BBC621E8098 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 05:57:52 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NZ+DWtxoA+io for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 05:57:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from srv01.bbserve.nl (unknown [IPv6:2a02:27f8:1025:18::232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8493E21E81F0 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 05:57:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [2001:df8:0:16:1e65:9dff:febe:7f88] by srv01.bbserve.nl with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.77) (envelope-from <fgont@si6networks.com>) id 1SCVxk-0002tn-N6; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:57:24 +0200
Message-ID: <4F71B938.7030300@si6networks.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 14:57:28 +0200
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Organization: SI6 Networks
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.28) Gecko/20120313 Thunderbird/3.1.20
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "ipv6@ietf.org" <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Meta comment about "3484bis and privacy addresses"
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 27 Mar 2012 12:57:52 -0000

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: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492