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

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Hello, Francis,

On 07/19/2017 02:17 PM, Francis Dupont wrote:
>>  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).

COuld you please provide a reference?



>>  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.

I'm not necessarily thinking about obsoleting it. This is, say, an open
question. I do think that you cannot move RFC4941 to STD, though.



> 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...

I don't think RFC4941 meet the criteria for elevating a document to STD,
though.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492