IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Madinas] Call for adoption: draft-zuniga-madinas-mac-address-randomization-01

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sat, 13 November 2021 23:44 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: madinas@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: madinas@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA8D33A096E for <madinas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Nov 2021 15:44:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 1NWo3sLdoGFo for <madinas@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 13 Nov 2021 15:44:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [IPv6:2a01:7e00:e000:2bb::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 428F73A0860 for <madinas@ietf.org>; Sat, 13 Nov 2021 15:44:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (cpe788a207f397a-cmbc4dfb96bb50.sdns.net.rogers.com [174.116.121.43]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 653BF1F47B for <madinas@ietf.org>; Sat, 13 Nov 2021 23:44:17 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id D27501A0E0D; Sat, 13 Nov 2021 18:44:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: "madinas@ietf.org" <madinas@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <CAHLBt83rmumEeuwEpJH6b-SxpWjOFTmgu2P4BQg1Dpvwdo-3Lg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <d389b7c8-705f-a262-2fa6-c874431c7e62@insa-lyon.fr> <26501_1636625733_618CED45_26501_266_1_787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93303544FC06@OPEXCAUBMA2.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAHLBt83rmumEeuwEpJH6b-SxpWjOFTmgu2P4BQg1Dpvwdo-3Lg@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Juan Carlos Zuniga <j.c.zuniga=40ieee.org@dmarc.ietf.org> message dated "Thu, 11 Nov 2021 11:48:58 -0500."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7.1; GNU Emacs 26.3
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2021 18:44:15 -0500
Message-ID: <24041.1636847055@dooku>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/madinas/pMKOvXcEb0o15o9ZtnF9WsXzv9g>
Subject: Re: [Madinas] Call for adoption: draft-zuniga-madinas-mac-address-randomization-01
X-BeenThere: madinas@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: MAC Address Device Identification for Network and Application Services <madinas.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/madinas>, <mailto:madinas-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/madinas/>
List-Post: <mailto:madinas@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:madinas-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/madinas>, <mailto:madinas-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2021 23:44:26 -0000

Juan Carlos Zuniga <j.c.zuniga=40ieee.org@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
    > I understand the concept of Support Documents when the WG is chartered
    > to define a solution.  However, in this case MADINAS is chartered to be
    > the point of contact to discuss to other SDOs about this topic, and
    > also to inform the IETF about the current state-of-affairs in other
    > SDOs. This is something that keeps coming back, so having an
    > informative reference provides value to the discussions. The charter
    > has deliverables to go along these lines.

I agree that the internet-draft does this.
The documents were very good in collecting the right information in the right
place so that we could establish the WG.

    > The draft may be seen as a Support Document if ever the need for new
    > solutions is identified in the future, but at the moment and with the
    > current charter we (authors) believe the draft responds to a clear need
    > and there is value in publishing it - perhaps with references to
    > information on a git page as suggested during the meeting.

It would have value as an RFC only if it can be used by a junior engineer to
explain to their manager why they can't use MAC addresses as primary keys.

To do that, if it details places in IETF specifications where this has
happened, and which were a mistake, then good.

Otherwise, I agree with Med.

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email