IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org> Tue, 21 January 2014 16:51 UTC

Return-Path: <hannes@stressinduktion.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D812D1A0119; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 08:51:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.435
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.435 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535] autolearn=ham
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 ddWVc4_1Z0ZZ; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 08:51:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from order.stressinduktion.org (order.stressinduktion.org [87.106.68.36]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72B3B1A0173; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 08:51:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by order.stressinduktion.org (Postfix, from userid 500) id 9DCDC1A0C277; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 17:51:29 +0100 (CET)
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 17:51:29 +0100
From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org>
To: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
Subject: Re: Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-16: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
Message-ID: <20140121165129.GI27626@order.stressinduktion.org>
References: <20140121155253.23475.70004.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52DE9E63.5050404@si6networks.com> <52DEA496.9000000@viagenie.ca>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <52DEA496.9000000@viagenie.ca>
Cc: 6man-chairs@tools.ietf.org, ipv6@ietf.org, Lloyd Wood <L.Wood@surrey.ac.uk>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses@tools.ietf.org, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 21 Jan 2014 16:51:35 -0000

On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 11:47:18AM -0500, Simon Perreault wrote:
> It said "DISCUSS" at the top, so I'll do just that...
> 
> Le 2014-01-21 11:20, Fernando Gont a écrit :
> >On 01/21/2014 12:52 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> >>(1) Section 5: Why mention only MD5 and SHA1? Why not
> >>HMAC-SHA256?
> >
> >They are just examples. I guess we could add HMAC-SHA256, too. I have no
> >objections to that.
> 
> On all the platforms I know there would be no practical reason to pick 
> MD5. Something better is always available and just as easy to use. I 
> don't want new code to use MD5 "because it was given as an example in 
> the RFC". Removing MD5 from the examples list would make me happy.

As soon as we implement that in the kernel, we can use SHA-1 and MD-5, all
other algorithms have a dependency on the crypto-api or must be restructured.

Btw. for my linux PoC I used SHA-1:

http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/300938/ (maybe the comments there could be
helpful as well).

Greetings,

  Hannes

v2.15.0 | Report a Bug | By Email