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

[神明達哉 <[e-mail]>]

At Tue, 17 May 2016 22:13:36 -0400,
Fernando Gont <[e-mail]> wrote:

> > From this one, and your response to the next point, it seems you are
> > saying the decision was to refuse to address that concern.  Am I
> > understanding it correctly?
>
> No. My take is that the concern is flawed. Please read
> draft-gont-predictable-protocol-ids, and even RFC4941, which talks at
> length about security and privacy issues regarding reusing identifiers
> in different context, for different scopes, etc.
>
> Let's call a lemon a lemon: Asking to embed a layer-2 identifier/address
> in a layer-3 address is extremely bad.

I don't have a strong position on this matter itself, but my
understanding of the sense of the wg is that this is controversial,
and at least far from a clear consensus.  To repeat myself, *my*
concern on this last call is that it's not even clear, at least to me,
if this draft tries to say embedding a link-layer address is, whether
it's randomized or not, "extremely bad" (and must therefore be
prohibited).  If that's the intent, it should be clearly stated and
backed by a clear consensus from the wg.  Right now I don't see either
such a clear statement or clear wg consensus.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya