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

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 07/19/2017 01:58 PM, Tim Chown wrote:
>> On 18 Jul 2017, at 15:52, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Folks,
>> 
>> Among the list of RFCs to be progressed to full std is/was RFC4941 
>> ("Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
>> IPv6").
>> 
>> As it stands, RFC4941 has a number of issues:
>> 
>> * Using the same IID for multiple prefixes * Not changing the IID
>> upon "security events" (including e.g., change in the underlying
>> MAC address) * Using MD5 as opposed to something better * Requiring
>> the use of temporary addresses along stable addresses (preventing
>> use of temporary-only, for nodes that feel like) * Not treating
>> IIDs as opaque values (see RFC7136)  when generating the randomized
>> IIDs (see step 3 in section 3.2.1 of RFC4941) * Mandating one
>> specific algorithm, when the same goals/properties can be achieved
>> with multiple algorithms (see section 4 of 
>> draft-gont-6man-non-stable-iids-01)
>> 
>> 
>> Based on the above, I personally don't think that it would make
>> sense to progress RFC4941 to Internet Standard, but rather think
>> that we should work on  a replacement of it -- our proposal being 
>> draft-gont-6man-non-stable-iids-01.
>> 
>> Thoughts?
> 
> Certainly any update on 4941 needs to be done in the light of a few
> deficiencies that have emerged over the years, and the publication of
> RFC7217.
> 
> I think it’s still possible to do a -bis off 4941.

My questions would be:

1) Can you actually address the aforementioned deficiencies without
significant changes to RFC4941? -- It would seem to me that in order to
address them, rfc4941bis would not be a bis document anymore.

2) If you were to address such deficiencies, could the bis document be
progressed to Internet Standard? -- My assessment of this question is: No.


If RFC4941 would take significant work, and the end result would
actually be significantly different from what's in RFC4941, then I'm not
sure that'd be different than starting from the I-D we already have...

Thanks!

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