RE: I-D Action: draft-templin-duid-ipv6-01.txt

"Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Fri, 15 January 2021 15:58 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.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 9C24C3A0BEC; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 07:58:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=boeing.com
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 reUcXf2Fhl7H; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 07:58:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.144.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E7933A0BDF; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 07:58:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id 10FFwVKG032438; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 10:58:36 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=boeing.com; s=boeing-s1912; t=1610726316; bh=UYU02WktQLDINCvdVdDIEOIIkdIqTUroLwmsJoGZ1es=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=r4E9hDLXNMHiC+9J7FbxvHlYplaZezht1DEi0+x4CejhNW6k1A1cVOg5i9tgDdPS8 xvv1pEPCFC07NhShN8JNBdjjN/44vE36NDbtyGqBG4OlUDNXkUlHfQyxmJv+8Vl3Vh It+A+Lyec4FvElXwYuo8XComSKSz44uDwJaBwVhztPajSYooqHcmxlWxhxmj9gSYai /PoUbJxrJ9iDvxzuF4FWHqnaI2D/FPfz2bwVd+9jockIHz+XwlSblGDZwPZAKVmbFD uOBhRuGwpcuzTv89+oiwAOhlBoTk3HgWMRxhQi1hJotz/HTRmcVpw3jAGmb2j69z1I 9WodpkEFNWJWQ==
Received: from XCH16-07-11.nos.boeing.com (xch16-07-11.nos.boeing.com [144.115.66.113]) by clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/8.15.2/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTPS id 10FFwP9H032341 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 15 Jan 2021 10:58:25 -0500
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.112) by XCH16-07-11.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.113) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.1.2044.4; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 07:58:24 -0800
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::1522:f068:5766:53b5]) by XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::1522:f068:5766:53b5%2]) with mapi id 15.01.2044.004; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 07:58:24 -0800
From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
CC: Simon Hobson <linux@thehobsons.co.uk>, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: I-D Action: draft-templin-duid-ipv6-01.txt
Thread-Topic: I-D Action: draft-templin-duid-ipv6-01.txt
Thread-Index: AdbrVAUq8ifd9On5SaGFHM0jDP097wAALijwAACVMXA=
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2021 15:58:23 +0000
Message-ID: <377d033bbfc846a48002186605fab6e5@boeing.com>
References: <8933413edf714c70bf582f0c35101c2a@boeing.com> <BN7PR11MB254732F11D3E50CE3DC01FE5CFA70@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
In-Reply-To: <BN7PR11MB254732F11D3E50CE3DC01FE5CFA70@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [137.137.12.6]
x-tm-snts-smtp: C83EF1CB7F1BD51FEADFBC1AA084B3259590A1812BDFE2A28EB743D0E69D15312000:8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/6WAXvWdtOdR3Oxahf2blOzsSvX8>
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: Fri, 15 Jan 2021 15:58:43 -0000

Bernie - go read my previous message responses. My text entered previously was
not intended to be "write-only"; it was intended to be read and commented on also.

Fred

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernie Volz (volz) [mailto:volz@cisco.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 7:50 AM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
> Cc: Simon Hobson <linux@thehobsons.co.uk>uk>; Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>om>; dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>rg>; IPv6 List
> <ipv6@ietf.org>
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] RE: I-D Action: draft-templin-duid-ipv6-01.txt
> 
> EXT email: be mindful of links/attachments.
> 
> 
> 
> Fred:
> 
> You are clearly not answering our questions. As I said, put DUID-EN aside. Why are the others not usable. Under what conditions
> should a DHCP client implementer use DUID-V6ADDR (and under what conditions MUST NOT it be used).
> 
> There are clear reasons for having the various forms we do have and there are statements as to when a particular one must not be
> used.
> 
> We could have many more DUID types, but we don't because there have to be clear reasons to have a new type ... and for that you
> need to explain why the existing types CANNOT be used and thus a new type is REQUIRED. This is why the bar for defining a new type
> was Standards Actions - we wanted it to be very high so that it is fully clear as to when one type should be used over another.
> 
> For example, if you said well my interfaces have no "link-layer addresses", that would rule out DUID-LL and DUID-LLT. It does leave
> DUID-UUID (and DUID-EN - but we can put that aside). So, perhaps then there's a reason why DUID-UUID cannot be used (perhaps no
> storage in which to record this). This then would mean none of the (-LL, -LLT, -UUID) could work.
> 
> But just to say "hey, I have an idea to use this for a DUID" isn't sufficient without the details of why it is REQUIRED and none of the
> existing types can be used.
> 
> - Bernie
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 10:40 AM
> To: Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com>
> Cc: Simon Hobson <linux@thehobsons.co.uk>uk>; Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>om>; dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>rg>; IPv6 List
> <ipv6@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-templin-duid-ipv6-01.txt
> 
> It is clear from these last three that people are not reading all of my responses; especially those in response to Bob Hinden's questions
> where the use case is clearly explained.
> Perhaps you are hoping that by asking the same question over and over again I will give a different answer. Please go back and read
> *all* of the posts; it is not a good use for any of our time for me to repeat myself over and over again.
> 
> Fred
> 
> PS Bernie and Ted - I have already explained why DUID-EN was considered but found to be too cumbersome and a DOWNREF.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bernie Volz (volz) [mailto:volz@cisco.com]
> > Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 6:48 AM
> > To: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
> > Cc: Simon Hobson <linux@thehobsons.co.uk>uk>; dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>rg>;
> > IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
> > Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Re: I-D Action: draft-templin-duid-ipv6-01.txt
> >
> > Fred:
> >
> > I agree with Simon.
> >
> > You have not explained why you cannot use one of the existing methods
> > - even putting aside DUID-EN. Why can you not use DUID-LL, DUID-LLT, or DUID-UUID?
> >
> > And, with DUID-EN, you can do whatever you want without anyone's input
> > - of course, whether that usage is a good idea is a separate question.
> > Yes, it may have a few additional bytes more than DUID-V6ADDR, but that hardly seems like a useful argument at this point as we
> still don't know why this is better than the existing DUID types for a STANDARDIZED type.
> >
> > I still see no text in the 00 or 01 draft about why you need this over
> > the existing methods - i.e., why none of the existing methods will work.
> >
> > The other thing about a standardized DUID is that you have to assure
> > it is not misused or misunderstood how it should be used. So, you need to be clear about when it MAY be used and when it MUST
> NOT be used.
> >
> > - Bernie
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: dhcwg <dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Simon Hobson
> > Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 9:08 AM
> > To: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>rg>; IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
> > Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [EXTERNAL] Re: I-D Action:
> > draft-templin-duid-ipv6-01.txt
> >
> > Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> No. I questioned the purpose of having an IPv6 address in something that’s supposed to be an opaque identifier.
> > >
> > > And, I said that if it were *truly* opaque to *all* examinations and
> > > references, then there would only ever be *one* DUID type for all
> > > time. But, RFC8415 clearly shows that multiple DUID types are
> > > defined and that new ones can be added through future standards action.
> >
> > Ah, you are starting from a false premise there.
> >
> > Just because something is opaque and never ever (in theory) used in
> > any way other than "X == Y" doesn't mean there's no reason to only ever have one method of creating it.
> > As the idea of DUID is that it should be globally unique, ideally the
> > method used to create it should have the most sources of entropy
> > possible. But different devices have different constraints. That's why
> > we have LL and LLT since adding time of creation to the pot adds entropy, thus making LLT 'better' than LL, but some devices don't
> have a clock (and possibly, no persistent storage) making LLT unfeasible for them - i.e. LL is inferior to LLT, but real world constraints
> make it necessary.
> >
> > So here the difference between LL and LLT is easy to see, as are the constraints that might force you to use the inferior one.
> >
> > What people are asking you is : what makes this proposal so much
> > better than what's already allowed, given that's what's in there is
> > supposed to be opaque and so "it's an IPv6 address" has no bearing on
> > it's "goodness" as a unique identifier. And more specifically, why is it better than an RFC4122 UUID as defined in RFC6355 - 'better'
> meaning sufficiently better to justify adding to the global code base required to support it.
> >
> > Both are 16 octets/128 bits long, both are intended to be globally
> > unique, both require persistent storage available to early boot loaders. So why is the proposed 128bit value better than the already
> defined 128bit value ?
> >
> > Simon
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > dhcwg mailing list
> > dhcwg@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg