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

Doug Barton <> Wed, 05 February 2014 04:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D32B1A0020; Tue, 4 Feb 2014 20:17:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.537
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.537 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2Mcc8khGxiu0; Tue, 4 Feb 2014 20:17:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5BA61A0025; Tue, 4 Feb 2014 20:17:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:d:5e7:f5ba:4b6d:93ee:711a] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:d:5e7:f5ba:4b6d:93ee:711a]) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 765F122B2D; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 04:17:09 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; t=1391573830; bh=T5wBzZsDllFwc196k47nhJrBmX9at8ZMx+duwfuxtu8=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:References:In-Reply-To; b=IFivhN6xdI/KY/w5ZnCq3IDLONcYTSdWJaC0M5pkwZvuO9esnvPGU/5n63/O5cf1r HviP/p0dBUMeKjJfuVE1J0o0u/7VT0IZlC9XCTfd6GiTdeuAPOwS+q5KXpiVaD6bH1 26JXZL7nErwL2CSXpcpo/6tCeIyaz0rJDl5RHG0Y=
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 2014 20:17:06 -0800
From: Doug Barton <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Simon Perreault <>, Fernando Gont <>, Stephen Farrell <>, The IESG <>
Subject: Re: Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
OpenPGP: id=1A1ABC84
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc:,, Lloyd Wood <>,
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 04:17:15 -0000

On 01/21/2014 08:47 AM, Simon Perreault wrote:
> 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.


Also +1 on including HMAC-SHA1 and ideally HMAC-SHA256 as explicit examples.

(This is all assuming the draft continues to advance. I continue to 
think it's at best a solution looking for a problem, and at worst a 
needless change that continues the harmful trend of fiddling with the 
spec long after we should have stopped.)