At 06:34 22-04-2013, RJ Atkinson wrote:
It would reduce consensus within the WG and the IETF as a whole
to remove that text -- as it clarifies that other mechanisms for
generating such IDs are not affected by this specification.
The document shepherd write-up mentioned that there is "Nothing in
particular" to report about the working group discussions. There
were two WG participants discussing about
draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses during the WGLC (excluding
the listed author and the WG Chairs).
I'll comment on the draft. The document is well-written.
From Section 1:
'The "Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in
IPv6" [RFC4941] were introduced to complicate the task of
eavesdroppers and other information collectors to correlate the
activities of a node, and basically result in temporary (and random)
Interface Identifiers that are typically more difficult to leverage
than those based on IEEE identifiers.'
There are some warnings in RFC 4941 about correlation. I don't see
any notes about that in this draft. My reading of this proposal is
that it is to mitigate address scanning. I could not find any
guidance on whether to use RFC 4941 or this draft for "privacy addresses".
From Section 3:
"The aforementioned algorithm MUST be employed for generating
the interface identifiers for all of the IPv6 addresses
configured with SLAAC for a given interface, including IPv6
link-local addresses."
The requirement is repeated in the note:
"This means that this document does not formally obsolete or
deprecate any of the existing algorithms to generate Interface IDs
(e.g. such as that specified in [RFC2464]). However, those IPv6
implementations that employ this specification must generate all
of their "stable" addresses as specified in this document."
I read that as meaning that this document informally obsoletes or
deprecates some of the existing algorithms but it's better not to say
it formally as it would be controversial.
"Implementations conforming to this specification SHOULD provide the
means for a system administrator to enable or disable the use of this
algorithm for generating Interface Identifiers."
If the implementation does not provide the means for the
administrator to enable or disable the use of the algorithm, does it
conform to this specification?
Regards,
-sm