Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-11.txt>

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 18/05/2016 03:32, joel jaeggli wrote:
> On 5/17/16 4:48 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 2:29 AM, Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>  
>>
>>     I would frankly be thrilled if we could get away from stable
>>     addresses altogether. But I’m skeptical about the feasibility of
>>     achieving consensus around that at present. Defining the approach in
>>     this draft in the meantime is certainly motivated by consideration
>>     for privacy improvement for me, even if that improvement is incremental.
>>
>>  
>> A much greater improvement in terms of privacy, and a much easier one in
>> terms of sheer number of RFCs that need to be updated, would derive from
>> forbidding or recommending against embedding *stable* link layer
>> addresses in IIDs.
> 
> which sounds fine by me.

Well, we could have the draft say this, but I think it would still be a
normative update to all the v6-over-foo RFCs for the case where randomized
MAC addresses are not active (i.e. basically 100% of the installed base).

    Brian