IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Rats] About (E)UID's

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Fri, 07 February 2020 15:32 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
X-Original-To: rats@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rats@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00E871200DF for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 07:32:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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 kfwbH8PAX4B1 for <rats@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 07:32:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from relay.sandelman.ca (relay.cooperix.net [176.58.120.209]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35AEF1200CC for <rats@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 07:32:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dooku.sandelman.ca (ip5f5bd76d.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de [95.91.215.109]) by relay.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D58B61F45A; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 15:32:13 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dooku.sandelman.ca (Postfix, from userid 179) id 4DF881A29DA; Fri, 7 Feb 2020 16:32:13 +0100 (CET)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com>
cc: "rats@ietf.org" <rats@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: <4AC81FBC-E48C-42ED-9EC7-A16AD1273E06@island-resort.com>
References: <8BDAAE2E-9803-4048-AD5B-59233708E6FB@akamai.com> <1C16DAA0-D03B-417C-894A-30C4015AEED7@island-resort.com> <24800.1581078727@dooku> <567E8973-3658-4346-BE72-BE0282064A01@island-resort.com> <4AC81FBC-E48C-42ED-9EC7-A16AD1273E06@island-resort.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com> message dated "Fri, 07 Feb 2020 14:12:17 +0000."
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 25.2.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2020 16:32:13 +0100
Message-ID: <545.1581089533@dooku>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rats/5buYfSJi3FI59_i-7fAcrbA6mbQ>
Subject: Re: [Rats] About (E)UID's
X-BeenThere: rats@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Remote Attestation Procedures <rats.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rats>, <mailto:rats-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/rats/>
List-Post: <mailto:rats@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rats-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rats>, <mailto:rats-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2020 15:32:17 -0000

Laurence Lundblade <lgl@island-resort.com> wrote:
    >> Agreed on the size quanta, but was thinking 128, 192 and 256, in case
    >> someone super keen on saving bits wants to use 192 which is enough for
    >> all the use scenarios.

    > Also note that UEIDs may be of a variety of lengths because the IMEI
    > and EUI based versions of them. The shortest is 7 bytes for the EUI-48
    > (6 bytes for EUI-48 and 1 byte for UEID type).  They are unique because
    > they rely on sequential assignment not on pure randomness.

I really would rather have 128 and 256, and not three options.

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email