Re: Consensus call on adopting: <draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-01>

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 04/19/2012 10:34 AM, Eliot Lear wrote:
>> It's not an argument against RFc4941, but rather an argument that even
>> with RFC4941, you still need to do something about the IEEE-based IIDs.
>> At the Paris IETF, some folks argued that if you have RFC 4941 in place,
>> you don't need draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses. Section 7 of
>> draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses (which should be an Appendix,
>> rather than a section in the main body of the document) illustrates that
>> that's not the case: even if you're employing RFC4941, you're still
>> subject to host-scanning attacks and host tracking.
> 
> Well, host scanning at least.  Host tracking depends on the implementation.

Not sure what you mean. If you don't do
draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses, you do either IEEE-derived
IIDs, or the randomized-but-stable-across-networks Windows IIDs. -- And
as long as you have stable-across-networks IIDs, you can be tracked.


>> How do you arrive to the conclusion that people might want to use this
>> instead of CGAs??
>>
>> As noted in the I-D tihs mechanism is meant to be a replacement for IIDs
>> based on IEEE identifiers. This is orthogonal to RFC4941 and orthogonal
>> to CGAs.
> 
> I know what you mean.  That matters less than how other people make use
> of the work.

We can't produce specs for people that cannot read and understand specs.
draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses solves a real and existing problem.

To me, "people using draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses instead of
CGAs" makes as much sense as "people using
draft-gont-6man-stable-privacy-addresses instead of TCP" -- I don't even
know how that might happen, and I've not heard your reasoning of why
that might happen.

Cheers,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492