Pete Resnick's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-16: (with DISCUSS)

["Pete Resnick" <[e-mail]>]

Pete Resnick has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-16: Discuss

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 http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd like to hear mostly from the shepherd, who didn't actually answer the
second part of the first question on the shepherd writeup: "Why is this
the proper type of RFC?"

This looks to me like an algorithm to generate stable, private, and
mostly unique addresses. It looks like it does not affect
interoperability at all if people choose a different method. It looks to
me like you could have accomplished the same task in a number of
different ways. This just seems like a nice method to use if someone
wanted to use it. So it's not clear to me why this isn't just an
Informational document explaining a nice way to generate stable, private,
mostly unique addresses without lots of MUSTs and SHOULDs that are not
really interoperability requirements.