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

+1

On 19 July 2017 at 00:52, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> 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?
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------