IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: "RFC4941bis" and draft-gont-6man-non-stable-iids

Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr> Wed, 19 July 2017 11:33 UTC

Return-Path: <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
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 AA15513178B for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 04:33:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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 DcqZKlXo-UQa for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 04:33:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (givry.fdupont.fr [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:6d55:211:5bff:fe98:d51e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 67BE11300BB for <6man@ietf.org>; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 04:33:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id v6JBH9nN037512; Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:17:09 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr)
Message-Id: <201707191117.v6JBH9nN037512@givry.fdupont.fr>
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
cc: "6man@ietf.org" <6man@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: "RFC4941bis" and draft-gont-6man-non-stable-iids
In-reply-to: Your message of Tue, 18 Jul 2017 17:52:50 +0300. <4d1ef3d1-1c21-ec76-7c1b-7bb0f5eaa805@si6networks.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 13:17:09 +0200
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/E_JJL4H3gFGGHLiSkT6hqSJqVQ0>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 19 Jul 2017 11:33:46 -0000

>  Among the list of RFCs to be progressed to full std is/was RFC4941
>  ("Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6").

=> I even published a document explaining what I thought about the
whole idea (and I didn't change my mind).

>  As it stands, RFC4941 has a number of issues:
>  * Using MD5 as opposed to something better

=> for this use MD5 is not bad. Just consider it as a not crypto hash.

Now RFC4941bis is currently heavily deployed so it is far too soon
to try to obsolete it.

When I went to the mic at a previous IETF meeting some years ago
to ask the IPv6 specs to be raise to full standard with at first
the IPv6 protocol itself (done, THANKS!!!). If the RFC4941 is left
at the border of the road I shan't be sad...

Regards

Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email