Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
Subject: Re: Benoit Claise's No Objection on
 draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-16: (with COMMENT)
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <52E1009F.2040104@innovationslab.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 16:52:43 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <EMEW3|a0d573aa23c56693308b75d307cb225aq0NGqh03tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|325221D1-3669-4F2E-A264-FA5F8FBA9BC5@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
References: <20140123092102.22697.55292.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
 <52E1009F.2040104@innovationslab.net>
 <325221D1-3669-4F2E-A264-FA5F8FBA9BC5@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
Cc: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>, 6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org,
 ipv6@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>,
 draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses@tools.ietf.org
Precedence: list

Hi,

On 23 Jan 2014, at 11:44, Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> =
wrote:

> Tim & Benoit,
>=20
> 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.html
>> 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-addresses/
>>=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 =
this
>> 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 =
document
>> 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
>=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.

OK, that makes sense. I agree that such a document on IID-generation =
would be very useful if the topic is not mentioned in this draft.

It may be an excuse to dust off =
draft-chown-6man-tokenised-ipv6-identifiers as one option...

Tim

>=20
> Regards,
> Brian
>=20
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------