Re: I-D Action: draft-templin-duid-ipv6-01.txt

"Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Fri, 15 January 2021 15:40 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.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 B95EA3A0BEC; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 07:40:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=boeing.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NyMs-Nm4LGeo; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 07:39:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.144.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 972103A0B48; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 07:39:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id 10FFdqEs013274; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 10:39:54 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=boeing.com; s=boeing-s1912; t=1610725194; bh=phLwJg/NvmT+MbkQ+thmCJztwqhluz4f/+Weq0OQSgk=; h=From:To:CC:Subject:Date:From; b=CoOi8+35CvmatsMKrxDUooAOVKfJd6eQzk3RshH/tV28dtZM5vl8eWCwn8/CTowzK RCAckJMzHID4wL5cWjDjf9ghHLEqwlHM4CrbkH8/Jd5nyU7Zd1HowM8WSLsBFwLYPH o8UIF3+XTDm/RJiV/cqgoTYtShyE+0NTK6k0NOrQA6eFEuy0l3bbSolh5kmJvN+Lcz z8UcuZjitGiGKjkNa7KwOkwCeCtURPs1VD5CVFA1WBnPwG1sP56SqeTmK8tfNgkV1j I+YSi8DllxtAkIUfzW8cMHV+ToeiadSMOqZwolyi9oZMKfb8jXldcyHft2S8JxHeW7 rPXJk+oQ2hBug==
Received: from XCH16-07-08.nos.boeing.com (xch16-07-08.nos.boeing.com [144.115.66.110]) by clt-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.15.2/8.15.2/8.15.2/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTPS id 10FFdj9Z013140 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 15 Jan 2021 10:39:45 -0500
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.112) by XCH16-07-08.nos.boeing.com (144.115.66.110) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.1.2044.4; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 07:39:44 -0800
Received: from XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::1522:f068:5766:53b5]) by XCH16-07-10.nos.boeing.com ([fe80::1522:f068:5766:53b5%2]) with mapi id 15.01.2044.004; Fri, 15 Jan 2021 07:39:44 -0800
From: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
CC: Simon Hobson <linux@thehobsons.co.uk>, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: I-D Action: draft-templin-duid-ipv6-01.txt
Thread-Topic: I-D Action: draft-templin-duid-ipv6-01.txt
Thread-Index: AdbrVAUq8ifd9On5SaGFHM0jDP097w==
Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2021 15:39:44 +0000
Message-ID: <8933413edf714c70bf582f0c35101c2a@boeing.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [137.137.12.6]
x-tm-snts-smtp: B4BD67EB9175136167D147CE9F8298B94CD8B0E1A9D11D58DFA7D87A733527702000:8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/fXjPO7MSrqpanIe8TQ3Qj9OHvFU>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 15 Jan 2021 15:40:06 -0000

It is clear from these last three that people are not reading all of my responses; especially
those in response to Bob Hinden's questions where the use case is clearly explained.
Perhaps you are hoping that by asking the same question over and over again I will give
a different answer. Please go back and read *all* of the posts; it is not a good use for
any of our time for me to repeat myself over and over again.

Fred

PS Bernie and Ted - I have already explained why DUID-EN was considered but found
to be too cumbersome and a DOWNREF.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernie Volz (volz) [mailto:volz@cisco.com]
> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 6:48 AM
> To: Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
> Cc: Simon Hobson <linux@thehobsons.co.uk>uk>; dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>rg>; IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
> Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Re: I-D Action: draft-templin-duid-ipv6-01.txt
>
> Fred:
> 
> I agree with Simon.
> 
> You have not explained why you cannot use one of the existing methods - even putting aside DUID-EN. Why can you not use DUID-LL,
> DUID-LLT, or DUID-UUID?
> 
> And, with DUID-EN, you can do whatever you want without anyone's input - of course, whether that usage is a good idea is a separate
> question. Yes, it may have a few additional bytes more than DUID-V6ADDR, but that hardly seems like a useful argument at this point
> as we still don't know why this is better than the existing DUID types for a STANDARDIZED type.
> 
> I still see no text in the 00 or 01 draft about why you need this over the existing methods - i.e., why none of the existing methods will
> work.
> 
> The other thing about a standardized DUID is that you have to assure it is not misused or misunderstood how it should be used. So,
> you need to be clear about when it MAY be used and when it MUST NOT be used.
> 
> - Bernie
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcwg <dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Simon Hobson
> Sent: Friday, January 15, 2021 9:08 AM
> To: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>rg>; IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [EXTERNAL] Re: I-D Action: draft-templin-duid-ipv6-01.txt
> 
> Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
> 
> >> No. I questioned the purpose of having an IPv6 address in something that’s supposed to be an opaque identifier.
> >
> > And, I said that if it were *truly* opaque to *all* examinations and
> > references, then there would only ever be *one* DUID type for all
> > time. But, RFC8415 clearly shows that multiple DUID types are defined
> > and that new ones can be added through future standards action.
> 
> Ah, you are starting from a false premise there.
> 
> Just because something is opaque and never ever (in theory) used in any way other than "X == Y" doesn't mean there's no reason to
> only ever have one method of creating it.
> As the idea of DUID is that it should be globally unique, ideally the method used to create it should have the most sources of entropy
> possible. But different devices have different constraints. That's why we have LL and LLT since adding time of creation to the pot adds
> entropy, thus making LLT 'better' than LL, but some devices don't have a clock (and possibly, no persistent storage) making LLT
> unfeasible for them - i.e. LL is inferior to LLT, but real world constraints make it necessary.
> 
> So here the difference between LL and LLT is easy to see, as are the constraints that might force you to use the inferior one.
> 
> What people are asking you is : what makes this proposal so much better than what's already allowed, given that's what's in there is
> supposed to be opaque and so "it's an IPv6 address" has no bearing on it's "goodness" as a unique identifier. And more specifically,
> why is it better than an RFC4122 UUID as defined in RFC6355 - 'better' meaning sufficiently better to justify adding to the global code
> base required to support it.
> 
> Both are 16 octets/128 bits long, both are intended to be globally unique, both require persistent storage available to early boot
> loaders. So why is the proposed 128bit value better than the already defined 128bit value ?
> 
> Simon
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg