Re: [Pearg] Research Group Last Call for draft-irtf-pearg-numeric-ids-history-03
Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Sat, 05 December 2020 15:05 UTC
Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Original-To: pearg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pearg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B86DA3A0D43 for <pearg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 07:05:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.297
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.297 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DATE_IN_PAST_03_06=1.592, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no 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 0b4HBwSbOIqm for <pearg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 07:05:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BBA5A3A0D1C for <pearg@irtf.org>; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 07:05:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:8164:896a:de13:c010:ff3a] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:8164:896a:de13:c010:ff3a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 03961280A8C; Sat, 5 Dec 2020 15:05:35 +0000 (UTC)
To: Kris Shrishak <kris.shrishak@sit.tu-darmstadt.de>, pearg@irtf.org
References: <7EA41E81-03A5-47A6-BBF1-B649F9BEA3DE@sinodun.com> <febeb9ae-6d02-adf2-2a3f-6268d22ee38b@sit.tu-darmstadt.de>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <b85a915b-8fbe-f413-6d36-6971f57d8e77@si6networks.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2020 06:55:15 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <febeb9ae-6d02-adf2-2a3f-6268d22ee38b@sit.tu-darmstadt.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/pearg/hTThyIjiwmmSgDAIiccAllQVTlM>
Subject: Re: [Pearg] Research Group Last Call for draft-irtf-pearg-numeric-ids-history-03
X-BeenThere: pearg@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Privacy Enhancements and Assessment Proposed RG <pearg.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/pearg>, <mailto:pearg-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/pearg/>
List-Post: <mailto:pearg@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pearg-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/pearg>, <mailto:pearg-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2020 15:05:53 -0000
Hi, Kris, Looks like I had failed to respond to this one. -- my apologies for that! In-line... On 16/11/20 14:51, Kris Shrishak wrote: [...] > Comments: > > - I am not sure if it is within the scope of this document, but when I > am reading a document as a history, then I am also interested in why > certain choices were made and not only the order in which they were > made. Maybe mailing lists can give us some insight on this. For > instance, the use of global counters for IPv6 when the issue of global > counters for TCP Initial Sequence Numbers was already raised well before > RFC2460 was published. It could just be that the authors and the WG were > unaware or did not consider the issue relevant. In some cases it's hard to tell. I'd argue that, in many cases, some issue was discussed within some group, but not within another. For example, you normally have very different sets of people participating in transport protocols and internet protocols -- I've done both, but I'd say that's rather unusual. Then the issue was electro-political: RFC7939 was originally meant to be Std Track. But then there was the argument that if RFC2460 was formally updated, it wouldn't be possible to elevate it to Internet Standard. So the track was changed to Informational, and then the recomendation to use global counters was removed from what became RFC8200. When we published RFC7217, the group rejected the idea to formally replace the traditional "Modified EUI-64 scheme" (also known as "embed your MAC address in the Interface Identifier"). However, well into post-Snowden times, the idea got harder to reject, I guess. > - Section 1: "Recent history indicates that ... specification or > selected by implementers." > > If recent history refers to the examples preceding this paragraph or to > the timelines presented in the following sections, then the framing of > this sentence can make it explicit. Maybe something along the lines of > "these examples indicate" will add clarity. Otherwise, a reference to a > couple of recent RFCs can substantiate the claim of recent history. I've applied the suggested change ("These examples indicate...") > Chris Wood [1] also raised this issue a while back in the context of > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-irtf-pearg-numeric-ids-generation-02 > > - Section 1, 5, 6, 10: I am not quite sure what "negative security and > privacy properties" means. Maybe it is just me, but this could be > formulated differently. An example formulation, similar to RFC 7217, > could be "negatively affect the privacy and security properties". What we meant was "bad properties". FWIW, I've applied your suggested edit in several places. Thanks! Regards, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
- [Pearg] Research Group Last Call for draft-irtf-p… Sara Dickinson
- Re: [Pearg] Research Group Last Call for draft-ir… Sara Dickinson
- Re: [Pearg] Research Group Last Call for draft-ir… Kris Shrishak
- Re: [Pearg] Research Group Last Call for draft-ir… Sara Dickinson
- Re: [Pearg] Research Group Last Call for draft-ir… Fernando Gont