Re: Consensus call on adopting: <draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-01>

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Fri, 13 April 2012 08:09 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E8C7A21F8744 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 01:09:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.555
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.555 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.045, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bj1Zm4djysrg for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 01:09:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ams-iport-1.cisco.com (ams-iport-1.cisco.com [144.254.224.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 036AD21F873A for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 01:09:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=lear@cisco.com; l=371; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1334304586; x=1335514186; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=gc4kq6IRp+Kz2njmDOrKfLBgPiMqGhse9nZFCV7kig4=; b=Ms/p88UmZ6olygRhbZz6UpQdNGwN/2TxteP6QgU034dl+Ianjb9WU9Qe Xf7syC0qpZY6QYx3Dcsr5y8GprJJNYlBDXQOhmcT/s8Vx81biAT6oevuU BrsfAlMMHLNdvdERsBEd63k0TgD3dORhMmHtzsarsY7ASjIVXa6oCPYjG E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAFAL3eh0+Q/khM/2dsb2JhbABFhWa0C4EHggoBAQQSARBVARALGgIFFgsCAgkDAgECAUUGDQEHAQEeh2yaBI0QkmyBL48QgRgElWyOTYFpgmk
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,415,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="135035182"
Received: from ams-core-3.cisco.com ([144.254.72.76]) by ams-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Apr 2012 08:09:45 +0000
Received: from elear-mac.local (dhcp-10-55-82-252.cisco.com [10.55.82.252]) by ams-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q3D89iJN025124; Fri, 13 Apr 2012 08:09:44 GMT
Message-ID: <4F87DF53.7030009@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 10:09:55 +0200
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Consensus call on adopting: <draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-01>
References: <E7607B61-9889-43A9-B86B-133BD4238BA2@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <E7607B61-9889-43A9-B86B-133BD4238BA2@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: 6man Chairs <6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org>, IPv6 WG Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 08:09:47 -0000

A question for the draft author:

At one point you write that the intent is to replace EUI-64-based
addresses (Section 5).  But that doesn't seem to jibe with what you
write in the intro about RFC-4941.  I am concerned that adopting this
mechanism will make matters worse if this mechanism is being used as an
alternative to CGAs, as opposed to EUI-64s..

Eliot