Re: Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-rfc4941bis-11: (with COMMENT)

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Tue, 20 October 2020 16:31 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 3D3803A0ADF; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 09:31:01 -0700 (PDT)
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 ETHuRyVYlJ0e; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 09:30:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::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 B691E3A0AC5; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 09:30:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:b9c:9022:719c:65bc:e918] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:b9c:9022:719c:65bc:e918]) (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 20899283A87; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 16:30:49 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-rfc4941bis-11: (with COMMENT)
To: Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-6man-rfc4941bis@ietf.org, 6man-chairs@ietf.org, ipv6@ietf.org, otroan@employees.org
References: <160313378187.7246.8644532996867850166@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <d0771c09-a0b6-95b3-ff0c-29cfa9fba7c5@si6networks.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 13:30:39 -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: <160313378187.7246.8644532996867850166@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/J9VoTt9gkRWm3jb8gYwuBKHSvGM>
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: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 16:31:01 -0000

Hello, Alvaro,

Thanks so much for your comments! In-line....

On 19/10/20 15:56, Alvaro Retana via Datatracker wrote:
[....]
> 
> §3.3 (Generation of Randomized Interface Identifiers) starts by saying that the
> "subsections specify example algorithms".  Are these algorithms just examples?

FWIW, the spirit is that algorithm is Section 3.4 is employed, and that 
the randomized IIDs to be used as described in Section 3.4 are generated 
in such a way that they comply with the requirements in Section 3.1.

As long as the IIDs comply with such requirements, it doesn't really 
matter which specific algorithm you employ for generating the IIDs.
At the end of the day, Section 3.3.2 is simply a PRNG. And so is Section 
3.3.1.

Furthermore, the goal of this document implies that it should be 
impossible for an external entity to tell what's the algorithm that was 
employed to generate the IIDs.



> Digging through the archive, it looks like they are: "It's one possible
> algorithm, and not necessarily the recommended one." [1]
> 
> However, §3.4 (Generating Temporary Addresses) says this:
> 
>     6.  New temporary addresses MUST be created by appending a randomized
>         interface identifier (generated as described in Section 3.3 of
>         this document) to the prefix that was received.
> 
> IOW, it makes the algorithms in §3.3 mandatory ("MUST...as described in Section
> 3.3").
> 
> Please clarify the text one way or the other: by eliminating "examples" from
> §3.3, or removing the text in parenthesis in §3.4.

How about changing that paragraph as:

OLD:
   6.  New temporary addresses MUST be created by appending a randomized
       interface identifier (generated as described in Section 3.3 of
       this document) to the prefix that was received.

NEW:
   6.  New temporary addresses MUST be created by appending a randomized
       interface identifier to the prefix that was received. The
       randomized interface identifier MUST comply with the design
       guidelines from Section 3.1. Section 3.3 specify some example
       algorithms that comply with the aforementioned design goals.


Xor, one might simply
NEW:
   6.  New temporary addresses MUST be created by appending a randomized
       interface identifier (see Section 3.3 of this document) to the
       prefix that was received.

or even remove the parenthesis (although the two other options are 
probably better).

Thoughts?

Thanks!

Cheers,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492