Re: Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-16: (with COMMENT)

[Brian Haberman <[e-mail]>]

Tim & Benoit,

On 1/23/14 4:21 AM, Benoit Claise wrote:
> Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-16: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Please Tim's OPS DIR review (currently under discussion)
> 
> First, I would note that I have already contributed comments/text to this
> draft, as acknowledged by Fernando.  It’s been a few versions since I
> last read it.
> 
> The goal of the draft has considerable merit, and I believe the document
> is worthy of publication, subject to comments belwo being considered.
> 
> I would classify the document as ‘Ready with issues’.
> 
> Issues:
> 
> 1. In the discussion in section 5 on the algorithm, it may be desirable
> to suggest that implementations allow a choice of IID generation based on
> ‘classic’ SLAAC with EUI-64 or via this new proposed method, with a
> default of the new method.
> 

Actually, this preference is out of scope for this document.  There is a
BCP in the works within 6MAN that will describe the current thinking on
which IID-generation mechanisms should be preferred.

Regards,
Brian