Hi Fernando,
Please note that this is not an objection.
At 12:40 22-04-2013, Fernando Gont wrote:
PLease see the Appendix.
I read that. I was confused by the short title (Stable Privacy
Addresses) at first. I didn't see much discussion in the draft about
privacy considerations. For what it is worth there isn't much in RFC
4941 either. I am not sure whether it is worth covering that angle
in the draft; it may end up being too much work.
Privacy addresses are employed in addition to traditional SLAAC
addresses -- hence they don't mitigate address scanning. FWIW, this is
all discussed in the I-D.
Yes, I read that. Privacy is a bit more than address scanning. From
an implementation perspective the document is good. It is difficult
to tell how the document fits in the bigger (IPv6) picture. I'll
mention it; I am not suggesting that anything be done about it.
It'd be "conditionally-compliant", but not fully-compliant.
It would be easier to say:
It is RECOMMENDED that implementations provide a configuration option to
enable or disable the use of this algorithm for generating Interface
Identifiers.
I didn't include an explanation for the recommendation as it seems
obvious to me.
BTW, you could steal some text from RFC 4941 for the 64-bit comment:
"Note that an IPv6 identifier does not necessarily have to be 64 bits in
length, but the algorithm specified in this document is targeted towards
64-bit interface identifiers."
Regards,
-sm