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

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 07/20/2017 03:34 PM, Francis Dupont wrote:
>  In your previous mail you wrote:
> 
>>  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?
> 
> => https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-dupont-ipv6-rfc3041harmful-05
> Note my concerns were integrated into RFC 4941 so they should look
> like pretty basic/old now.

I simpatize with some of the comments. That said, temp addresses tend to
be disabled in enterprise environments (for some of the reasons you note
in your I-D)... and when it comes to DoS attacks, in the IPv6 world
you'd fan a whole /64 as opposed to a single /128.



>>  > 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.
> 
> => I understand well it is a different question but IMHO your
> ultimate goal is to obsolete RFC 4941 (with other words I should not
> believe you if you answer you never had this idea :-).

It certainly wasn't the original idea. Then it was an open question. And
now I'd say that we should probably obsolete rfc4941, but of course
that's up to the wg.


>>  > 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.
> 
> => so at least we don't disagree...

;-)


Thanks!

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