Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-rfc4941bis-11: (with COMMENT)

Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <> Tue, 20 October 2020 20:48 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4539C3A0736; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 13:48:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <>
To: "The IESG" <>
Cc:,,, =?utf-8?q?Ole_Tr=C3=B8an?= <>,
Subject: Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-rfc4941bis-11: (with COMMENT)
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.20.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Roman Danyliw <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 13:48:54 -0700
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 20:48:54 -0000

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6man-rfc4941bis-11: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


I support Ben Kaduk’s DISCUSS position around the need for clarity on what
“statistically different” means (per Section 3).

I also strongly concur with Ben’s guidance on the construction of the RID in
Section 3.3.1

** Section 3.*.  The guidance uses the language of “deprecate”.  This to me
would suggest some notion of state being kept where I know I’ve used an address
before and I won’t use it again.  However, that doesn’t seem right here.

** Section 3.1.  Per “it must be difficult for an outside entity …”, what’s the
rough thinking on the workload for “difficult” or is there more precise
language.  I ask because Section 2.1

** Section 3.3. The subsections present two different algorithms.  Is there an
MTI approach?

** Section 3.3.2.  This section suggests that use of SHA-256, but is there
normative guidance on an MTI algorithm?

** Section 3.3.2.  If the hash algorithm output length exceeds the needed
identifier length, how should truncations be handled?

** Editorial
-- Section 1.2.  Nit.  For consistency, s/on-link/on path/