IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-11.txt>

joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com> Tue, 17 May 2016 15:32 UTC

Return-Path: <joelja@bogus.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3561712D90E for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 May 2016 08:32:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.326
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.326 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 26zTp5g5tcjQ for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 May 2016 08:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nagasaki.bogus.com (nagasaki.bogus.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 10FFD12B04E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 May 2016 08:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mb-2.local ([IPv6:2601:647:4204:51:591a:551d:2ead:2204]) (authenticated bits=0) by nagasaki.bogus.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id u4HFW79n055952 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Tue, 17 May 2016 15:32:07 GMT (envelope-from joelja@bogus.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: nagasaki.bogus.com: Host [IPv6:2601:647:4204:51:591a:551d:2ead:2204] claimed to be mb-2.local
Subject: Re: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids-11.txt>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
References: <20160428004904.25189.43047.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <89CA2C18-AE61-4D40-8997-221201835944@gmail.com> <6f2edbbc-d208-03a0-3c33-503a05c0bee8@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1So_tFFSr=sk8ew-UJG-dWK=U6N9mwJnwkZdNX=__SVQ@mail.gmail.com> <11cf3f90-e693-a640-a372-f419a8f7a1a0@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr0OPuSmp-OWG-+ZjDsHucQYTG2PMZw7jdiU=4kQqK+tyQ@mail.gmail.com> <663debf7-cfba-b19b-92ef-89cc66b452d8@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr2Km2A6XO8nvNv31Ti_Rr2j4gse1KLadJPcrgFMKyzszw@mail.gmail.com> <31E1F934-FEA2-4338-8F2C-04E7302F3170@cooperw.in> <CAKD1Yr052q0-xTkgLmL8UM=bXAEypDiGHuEhtOhwc3qpoZWbDw@mail.gmail.com>
From: joel jaeggli <joelja@bogus.com>
Message-ID: <53e5543b-ebc2-9ca7-5275-693027d44088@bogus.com>
Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 08:32:07 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.11; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr052q0-xTkgLmL8UM=bXAEypDiGHuEhtOhwc3qpoZWbDw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="PhnniIvoUNcpSU18Fu5F0MEDBAK27nsdW"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/qzs7s8_4t1_VI28t5TzICWQ-KQ4>
Cc: IETF IPv6 Mailing List <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 15:32:14 -0000

On 5/17/16 4:48 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 2:29 AM, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in
> <mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>> wrote:
>  
> 
>     I would frankly be thrilled if we could get away from stable
>     addresses altogether. But I’m skeptical about the feasibility of
>     achieving consensus around that at present. Defining the approach in
>     this draft in the meantime is certainly motivated by consideration
>     for privacy improvement for me, even if that improvement is incremental.
> 
>  
> A much greater improvement in terms of privacy, and a much easier one in
> terms of sheer number of RFCs that need to be updated, would derive from
> forbidding or recommending against embedding *stable* link layer
> addresses in IIDs.

which sounds fine by me.

> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email