Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4941bis-05.txt>

[Erik Kline <[e-mail]>]

S3.2.2: Is SHA-1 still a reasonable recommendation, given recent events?

S3.5: Is the specific mention of ethernet required (or is that text just an
example)?

S3.3/3.5/general: it might be fun to call out that implementations are free
to create a temporary address for use by, say, only a single application.
The implementation would need to make sure that only the given application
can use the address, that the address is expired if the application
terminates/releases the address before default lifetime expires, and may
want to make some API available for applications interact with this
capability.

On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 3:17 PM Bob Hinden <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Hello,
>
> This message starts a new two week 6MAN Working Group Last Call on
> advancing:
>
>        Title           : Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address
> Autoconfiguration in IPv6
>        Authors         : Fernando Gont
>                          Suresh Krishnan
>                          Thomas Narten
>                          Richard Draves
>         Filename        : draft-ietf-6man-rfc4941bis-05.txt
>         Pages           : 21
>         Date            : 2019-12-10
>
>    https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-rfc4941bis-05
>
> as a Proposed Standard.
>
> Substantive comments and statements of support for publishing this
> document should be directed to the mailing list. Editorial suggestions can
> be sent to the author.  This last call will
> end on 23 January 2020.
>
> Thanks,
> Bob & Ole
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>