Re: "RFC4941bis" and draft-gont-6man-non-stable-iids

[Tim Chown <[e-mail]>]

> On 18 Jul 2017, at 15:52, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Folks,
> 
> Among the list of RFCs to be progressed to full std is/was RFC4941
> ("Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6").
> 
> As it stands, RFC4941 has a number of issues:
> 
> * Using the same IID for multiple prefixes
> * Not changing the IID upon "security events" (including e.g., change in
> the underlying MAC address)
> * Using MD5 as opposed to something better
> * Requiring the use of temporary addresses along stable addresses
> (preventing use of temporary-only, for nodes that feel like)
> * Not treating IIDs as opaque values (see RFC7136)  when generating the
> randomized IIDs (see step 3 in section 3.2.1 of RFC4941)
> * Mandating one specific algorithm, when the same goals/properties can
> be achieved with multiple algorithms (see section 4 of
> draft-gont-6man-non-stable-iids-01)
> 
> 
> Based on the above, I personally don't think that it would make sense to
> progress RFC4941 to Internet Standard, but rather think that we should
> work on  a replacement of it -- our proposal being
> draft-gont-6man-non-stable-iids-01.
> 
> Thoughts?

Certainly any update on 4941 needs to be done in the light of a few deficiencies that have emerged over the years, and the publication of RFC7217.

I think it’s still possible to do a -bis off 4941.

Tim