Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4941bis-10.txt> (Temporary Address Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6) to Proposed Standard

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 10/9/20 08:35, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
> 
> 
> Le 10/09/2020 à 13:26, Lorenzo Colitti a écrit :
>> Having read this document again, I have the following concerns.
>>
>> 1. I think it should not include section 3.3.2. The reason is that it
>>  needlessly suggests an algorithm that is much more complex than
>> simply using an existing random number generator which all nodes
>> likely already have.
> 
> I object to that I-D paragraph at least because it says this "SHOULD
> produce an output of at least 64 bits."  It should be of a more variable
> length.  It is not 'at least 64bit'.

Huh?

SLAAC IIDs are currently required to be 64-bit long, hence the output 
should be of at least 64 bits -- if the output is 64-bits, you take all 
of them, whereas if it's more that 64-bits, you discard the exceeding bits.



> I do not oppose to the existence of that section 3.3.2.  But how would
> it cope with other generated Interface Identifiers, like HIT (Host
> Identity Tag) or ORCHIDs.  These are too RFCs on the Standards Track.
> They too are generated by a crypto function, they too are 64bit length.
>   Still they are different than this F().

This is orthogonal to this document.

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [e-mail] || [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1