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

[神明達哉 <[e-mail]>]

At Fri, 13 May 2016 13:45:37 -0700,
Alissa Cooper <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > - clarify that this recommendation is only for environments where
> >  address stability is needed
>
> The document says exactly this in the introduction:
>
> The recommendations in this document apply only in cases where
>    implementations otherwise would have configured a stable IPv6 IID
>    containing a link layer address.  That is, this document does not
>    change any existing recommendations concerning the use of temporary
>    addresses as specified in [RFC4941 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4941>], nor does it introduce any new
>    requirements regarding when stable addresses are to be configured.
>    Thus, the recommendations in this document simply improve the
>    security and privacy properties of stable addresses.

This text specifically talks about RFC4941 as the "environments where
address stability is NOT needed", and, with the 'That is,' only talks
about it.  On the other hand, my understanding of previous concerns in
this context is to also cover other types of such environments,
specifically the one using randomized link-layer addresses with the
traditional algorithm of forming the IID from such LL addresses.

>From this one, and your response to the next point, it seems you are
saying the decision was to refuse to address that concern.  Am I
understanding it correctly?

--
JINMEI, Tatuya