On Thu, Dec 17, 2020, at 18:35, Fernando Gont wrote: > > Separately, I found the list of potential problems in Section 4 to be > > approximately OK, though it lacked any mention of a need to > > synchronize changes across protocol layers. I acknowledge that that > > is about use rather than generation, but that is quite relevant here > > too. > > That's a good point. We considered that to be implicit here: > > o Employing the same identifier across contexts in which constancy > is not required Unnecessary linkability is one thing, but "not required" is not the thing I refer to, but "constancy where unlinkability is desirable". > One trivial example would be the randomization of MAC addresses without > a change in the MAC address triggering generation of a new IPv6 address. Right. > Do you think this warrants clarification? Definitely. -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
