IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] [EXTERNAL] Re: I-D Action: draft-templin-duid-ipv6-01.txt

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Thu, 14 January 2021 20:30 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 584193A1630; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 12:30:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 KEH5qhpDqoDv; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 12:30:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9C6163A1632; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 12:30:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2a01:79c:cebd:9724:b977:3e1d:14d2:6573] (unknown [IPv6:2a01:79c:cebd:9724:b977:3e1d:14d2:6573]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 364424E11B2D; Thu, 14 Jan 2021 20:30:00 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [EXTERNAL] Re: I-D Action: draft-templin-duid-ipv6-01.txt
Date: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 21:29:57 +0100
Message-Id: <085F29A9-B8F0-44DF-AD4A-9EFD39FAB183@employees.org>
References: <cb1cb55e5b634ceea3dde33b8c8816c1@boeing.com>
Cc: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>, dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>, "Dickson (US), Sean M" <sean.m.dickson@boeing.com>
In-Reply-To: <cb1cb55e5b634ceea3dde33b8c8816c1@boeing.com>
To: "Templin (US), Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18C66)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/g7fuLaK--Hr0OouGNShQtpOqigo>
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: Thu, 14 Jan 2021 20:30:03 -0000


> On 14 Jan 2021, at 20:46, Templin (US), Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
> 
> A different poster (Ole) made an assertion that seemed to call into question
> why more than one DUID type is necessary - the above text was included to
> to justify why multiple DUIDs are provided by RFC8415, and why additional
> DUIDs can be added through future standards actions.

No. I questioned the purpose of having an IPv6 address in something that’s supposed to be an opaque identifier. 

Cheers 
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email