IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Cutler James R <james.cutler@consultant.com> Mon, 25 November 2013 17:23 UTC

Return-Path: <james.cutler@consultant.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC9B21ADF62 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 09:23:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham
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 IVIpkbwEnHJX for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 09:23:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [74.208.4.201]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66A941ADF54 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 09:23:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.44] ([68.43.142.33]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmxus002) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0M8etp-1VO7Qe29ul-00wByG for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Nov 2013 18:23:00 +0100
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C9847F17-0CCF-49B4-989A-C9B59972E4A8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
Subject: Re: 6MAN Adoption call on draft-gont-6man-deprecate-eui64-based-addresses-00
From: Cutler James R <james.cutler@consultant.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAA7e52oB9wrzx-4=5-tx0JvuHDyBJ2Ht=VrxykEoFjgAT2_esw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 12:22:57 -0500
Message-Id: <420CBB76-E1AD-425A-A6D7-FD1C22129588@consultant.com>
References: <F681E049-43A2-4A61-8692-C59A1BF356A6@employees.org> <19211253-FE58-459C-A8D2-46787EB57728@employees.org> <CAA7e52oB9wrzx-4=5-tx0JvuHDyBJ2Ht=VrxykEoFjgAT2_esw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jean-Michel Combes <jeanmichel.combes@gmail.com>, 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:GtlDMZLXsq6xuj/ekUhG6/VmNN9GDA8KjvhzDMlaDqv/QNvg2DQ bOj2Nf8xArXb9II5gWvwFdGh7OxdjmQpwQUWhU02wk/W6T91KtqMguNE5tQbWQiGlyy7f1x qTmi6GP4rKF6Xwpw54DtgfhRiB4oOpi1Y9HZLcfjVXUiLjAJIfTlFGMiRGc2ZjQLGsvV2rl kb6pxvsgt9exmk9kW42fw==
Cc: 6man Chairs <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Mon, 25 Nov 2013 17:23:03 -0000

On Nov 25, 2013, at 12:13 PM, Jean-Michel Combes <jeanmichel.combes@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I don't support the adoption of this document as WG document in its current format.
> 
> o "Nodes MUST NOT employ IPv6 address generation schemes that embed the underlying hardware address in the Interface Identifier."
> At first, as Ole said, privacy is policy and I don't see why IETF should dictate its rules to a network admin. If I want to set up an IPv6 node, in _my_ network, using SLAAC with EUI-64, it is my decision (BTW, maybe based on my security policy).
> IMHO,  
> - "MUST NOT" should be replaced by "SHOULD NOT"
> - Title should be replaced by "Recommendations for generation of IPv6 IIDs"
> - Intended status should be replaced by "Informational"
> 
> o "Nodes SHOULD implement and employ [I-D.ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses] as the default scheme"
> Why should I employ, by default, this method? Why not RFC4941 based one? Why not CGA? Why not a proprietary one?
> IMHO, this sentence should be replaced by "Nodes SHOULD implement and employ alternative schemes providing a better privacy like [I-D.ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses], [RFC4941] and [RFC3972]."
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> JMC.
> 

+1

Please keep business policy mandates out of RFCs.  It is always correct to recommend how to implement policies.

James R. Cutler
james.cutler@consultant.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email