Re: 6MAN Adoption call on draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00

On Nov 21, 2013, at 7:26 AM 11/21/13, Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> wrote:

> <nochair>
> 
> to give my reasons for the hum against during the meeting.
> 
> - privacy (and security) are policy. I think it is unlikely that the IETF is prescient enough to get this right for all cases
> - I think draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-address-generation-privacy-00 is enough to explain the privacy considerations to give
>  implementors and users enough background to make a qualified choice
> - deprecating EUI-64 based interface-identifiers is way too strong, there are many cases where those are unproblematic to use

Ole - thanks for expressing these reasons.  In my opinion, all of these issues should be explored in conjunction with a simple change from MUST to SHOULD.  It might even be that SHOULD is too strong, and the community would be better served by a statement on the issues and recommendations derived from discussion of the issues.  Certainly, "SHOULD NOT" would need text expanding on situations in which IIDs baed on hardware addresses are not problematic, to explain when those IIDs are OK.

> 
> I do think there is a problem with the IPv6 over Foo documents (e.g. RFC2464) requiring the interface-ids based on EUI-64,
> and leading to certification tests requiring implementations supporting it.

6LoWPAN header compression and its derivatives are also specific examples of deployed IPv6-over-foo standards that must be considered.

> 
> I would be much more supportive of a document that updated those documents stating that there are alternative
> ways of generating the interface-id, and refer to the generation-privacy document for considerations.
> it could have text stating that unless there are link-specific considerations, stable privacy addresses should be the default interface-id for addresses larger than link-local scope.

+1

- Ralph

> 
> cheers,
> Ole
> 
> </nochair>
> 
> 
>> All,
>> 
>> There was strong support to adopt this draft at the working group meeting in Vancouver.
>> This is an adoption call to confirm the result of the hum at the meeting.
>> 
>> Please provide a view with reasons as to whether the WG should adopt this or not.
>> 
>> This message starts a one week 6MAN Working Group call on adopting:
>> 
>> 	Title           : Deprecating EUI-64 Based IPv6 Addresses
>> 	Author(s)    : F. Gont, A. Cooper, D. Thaler, W. Liu
>> 	Filename    : draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00
>> 	Pages        : 5
>> 	Date          : 2013-10-22
>> 
>>  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00
>> 
>> The call ends on November 26th, 2013.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Bob Hinden & Ole Trøan
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------