Re: draft-gont-6man-managing-privacy-extensions-00.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 2011-03-13 00:11, Fernando Gont wrote:
> On 09/03/2011 03:49 p.m., Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> I don't think it solves what it thinks it solves, but if this REALLY
>>> should be implemented, it's my initial thinking that the H flag should
>>> be a MUST demand to only have ONE and only one MAC-based IPv6 address
>>> according to EUI64. I would appreciate some reasoning in the draft why
>>> this was chosen as a SHOULD option.
>> For the reason I just gave against the disable-private flag: this
>> violates the host's right to use an untraceable address.
>>
>> It may be that in corporate deployments, that right can be removed.
>> But removing it for public subscribers would be a political blunder.
> 
> The requirements in draft-gont-6man-managing-privacy-extensions are
> SHOULDs, for this very reason.
> 
> How about including some text that explicitly states that a host can
> always override the desired policy (with a system toggle) if it desires
> to do so?

Yes, I think so, clearly labelled as "Privacy Considerations".

Otherwise we'll just have a re-run of the Jasmine thread right here.

   Brian