On 17/12/20 06:17, Martin Thomson wrote:
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".
FWIW, our argument is essentially that if constancy is not required in a
given context, then you should generally avoid it. i.e.,
"unlinkability", where possible, should be the default.
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.
Please let me craft some text and come back to you to check whether you
think it addresses this issue.
Thanks!
Regards,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
