Message-ID: <52E1009F.2040104@innovationslab.net>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 06:44:31 -0500
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7;
 rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Benoit Claise's No Objection on
 draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-16: (with COMMENT)
References: <20140123092102.22697.55292.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <20140123092102.22697.55292.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
 protocol="application/pgp-signature";
 boundary="FJ3lAM1mXx3gPxXIhxp2A4U7VeXd45R5d"
Cc: 6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org, tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk, ipv6@ietf.org,
 draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses@tools.ietf.org
Precedence: list

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--FJ3lAM1mXx3gPxXIhxp2A4U7VeXd45R5d
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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
>=20
> 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.)
>=20
>=20
> Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.htm=
l
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>=20
>=20
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresse=
s/
>=20
>=20
>=20
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>=20
> Please Tim's OPS DIR review (currently under discussion)
>=20
> First, I would note that I have already contributed comments/text to th=
is
> draft, as acknowledged by Fernando.  It=92s been a few versions since I=

> last read it.
>=20
> The goal of the draft has considerable merit, and I believe the documen=
t
> is worthy of publication, subject to comments belwo being considered.
>=20
> I would classify the document as =91Ready with issues=92.
>=20
> Issues:
>=20
> 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
> =91classic=92 SLAAC with EUI-64 or via this new proposed method, with a=

> default of the new method.
>=20

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


--FJ3lAM1mXx3gPxXIhxp2A4U7VeXd45R5d
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.20 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org

iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJS4QCfAAoJEBOZRqCi7goqjX8IALJsti5EOP5oPYAQcbqhtyUH
lfTpCOwmr3Ps14erfEb7NSHfMF9a/j5SzZsn+be+j5rheONnrHASR8hssmaMVQHE
nMpnZj4W+IXtf54tpIXbH+CYmGwMGgVwu5yoZD2mu8lh1qLe5TQVSWxuZZ8h5fBF
CHCUYgA9m6dtD40UvF1KS14b2kPuKF2pA7AtM7SvgS9y7QBNLeaoNRNDLhStgfKj
VEI3RKH1e3B3CnU+YtlNfUr4scHP8iO/OmbKLKRkyYGDVqEU57t4kF02DC+VFcFk
YgafUEQ59pE6rzAp21RAz2bFdm4S+eCFYWLYVW9DcxyDV60VhNF9dhwZGWEMbYE=
=Z+vv
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--FJ3lAM1mXx3gPxXIhxp2A4U7VeXd45R5d--