Re: Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-rfc4941bis-11: (with COMMENT)
Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Mon, 02 November 2020 22:02 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 D895B3A0822; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 14:02:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.146
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.146 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.247, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 uhxX9jNbKOxQ; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 14:02:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB6D53A1237; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 14:02:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:b9c:2de0:4c4d:138:6093] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:b9c:2de0:4c4d:138:6093]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BED38283B6D; Mon, 2 Nov 2020 22:02:11 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-rfc4941bis-11: (with COMMENT)
To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-6man-rfc4941bis@ietf.org, 6man-chairs@ietf.org, ipv6@ietf.org, Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org>
References: <160322693425.32704.2984378163015793558@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <1ca5ab50-0795-70aa-e6f0-399ea3eefc00@si6networks.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2020 18:09:38 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <160322693425.32704.2984378163015793558@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/6CQ1AgYiinc-bSspb3O3VRmgxoc>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 02 Nov 2020 22:02:29 -0000
Hi, Roman, Thanks a lot for your feedback! It seems somehow I failed to respond to your message -- apologies for that! -- In-line.... On 20/10/20 17:48, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker wrote: [....] > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > I support Ben Kaduk’s DISCUSS position around the need for clarity on what > “statistically different” means (per Section 3). > > I also strongly concur with Ben’s guidance on the construction of the RID in > Section 3.3.1 FWIW, both of these will hopefully be addressed by the next rev. > ** Section 3.*. The guidance uses the language of “deprecate”. This to me > would suggest some notion of state being kept where I know I’ve used an address > before and I won’t use it again. However, that doesn’t seem right here. FWIW, "deprecate" is SLAAC terminology... > ** Section 3.1. Per “it must be difficult for an outside entity …”, what’s the > rough thinking on the workload for “difficult” or is there more precise > language. I ask because Section 2.1 Not sure I'd be able to quantify that... > ** Section 3.3. The subsections present two different algorithms. Is there an > MTI approach? FWIW, what you need is a PRNG. The only reason for which we speficy two algorithms (as opposed to just random() ), is that the algorithm in Swction 3.3.2 might allow implementations to reuse code. > ** Section 3.3.2. This section suggests that use of SHA-256, but is there > normative guidance on an MTI algorithm? This document does not normatively require any specific algorithm for randomizing the IID. > ** Section 3.3.2. If the hash algorithm output length exceeds the needed > identifier length, how should truncations be handled? As per our discussion with Ben on a kind of related note, this is left as an implementation specific detail. > ** Editorial > -- Section 1.2. Nit. For consistency, s/on-link/on path/ In this case, that'd be incorrect. We really mean on-link, as "on the same link as the victim". Thanks! Regards, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
- Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-r… Roman Danyliw via Datatracker
- Re: Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-6m… Fernando Gont