IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> Tue, 21 January 2014 16:47 UTC

Return-Path: <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
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 1787B1A0191; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 08:47:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.436
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.436 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 MHexzJAQjiMG; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 08:47:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (jazz.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40D851A00C8; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 08:47:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from porto.nomis80.org (ringo.viagenie.ca [IPv6:2620:0:230:c000:3e97:eff:fe0b:dd8a]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C7F8F40367; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 11:47:18 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <52DEA496.9000000@viagenie.ca>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 11:47:18 -0500
From: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
References: <20140121155253.23475.70004.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52DE9E63.5050404@si6networks.com>
In-Reply-To: <52DE9E63.5050404@si6networks.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: 6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org, ipv6@ietf.org, Lloyd Wood <L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>, draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses@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: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 16:47:21 -0000

It said "DISCUSS" at the top, so I'll do just that...

Le 2014-01-21 11:20, Fernando Gont a écrit :
> On 01/21/2014 12:52 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> (1) Section 5: Why mention only MD5 and SHA1? Why not
>> HMAC-SHA256?
>
> They are just examples. I guess we could add HMAC-SHA256, too. I have no
> objections to that.

On all the platforms I know there would be no practical reason to pick 
MD5. Something better is always available and just as easy to use. I 
don't want new code to use MD5 "because it was given as an example in 
the RFC". Removing MD5 from the examples list would make me happy.

>> (2) Why might a sys admin want to display the
>> secret key?
>
> e.g., you want a replacement system to generate the same addresses.

Good reason IMHO.

Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email