Re: Consensus call on adopting: <draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-01>

[Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>]

Fernando,

On May 9, 2012, at 7:50 PM, Fernando Gont wrote:

> Hi, Ole,
> 
> On 05/08/2012 02:42 PM, Ole Trøan wrote:
>> The discussion brought up some issues that we will work with the author to
>> resolve, in particular:
>> 
>> - The current draft is written to not allow the IETF to create derivative works.
>>   This is incompatible with the IETF standards process.
>>   See section 4 of http://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt
> 
> My understanding is that this is perfectly compatible with the IETF
> standards process, as long as this restriction is removed before posting
> as draft-ietf (for instance, I guess that's why it's allowed in the
> first place). (this restriction will be removed in the upcoming
> draft-ietf version, accordingly)


It is allowed and I don't want to start a big IPR thread here, but I think the intent for this clause (no derivative works) is for work that someone wants to present to a w.g. that was not intended to be an IETF work item.  My opinion is that it's not appropriate for documents intended to become an IETF work item as yours was.

> 
> 
> 
>> - The draft should not replace modified EUI-64 IIDs. It intents to provide an alternative to
>>   IEEE MAC based modified EUI-64 IIDs.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> 
>>   The draft should not update RFC4191 and RFC4862
> 
> Agreed. However, it looks like this document should update RFC2464, though.
> 
> Thoughts?

Perhaps at some point in the future if the working group wants to require stable privacy addresses, but not at this point.  I think we will need operational experience before making that change.

Bob


> 
> 
>> - The proposed mechanism has merit separately from the perceived "security" benefits,
>>   because it creates modified EUI-64 Internet Identifiers that are not IEEE Mac based and
>>   eliminates any concern about host tracking based on the IEEE MAC addresses.
> 
> I agree with this -- e.g. using the interface index in the hash leads to
> stable NIC-independent addresses that don't vary even if you replace the
> NIC. Is *this* what I should note in the next rev of the document?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Best regards,
> -- 
> Fernando Gont
> e-mail: [e-mail] || [e-mail]
> PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------