On Friday, February 12, 2016 11:26 AM, JINMEI, Tatuya wrote: > Brian Carpenter called for an attention to Section 4.5.2 of the draft: > https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/J_SnGxd2JunlpOeL4JprV03UA7s > > so I'm responding to it. > > 4.5.2. Prefix delegation > > The interaction between prefix delegation and anonymity require > further study. For now, the simple solution is to avoid using prefix > delegation when striving for anonymity. When using the anonymity > profiles, clients SHOULD NOT use IA_PD, the prefix delegation form of > address assignment. > > I'm not sure what Brian tried to indicate in his message, but at least this > section looks vague to me about the rationale for the "SHOULD NOT". It's > not obvious to me how IA_PD is worse than IA_NA in terms of privacy. Is this > a "SHOULD NOT" simply because the "interaction" > (is not yet fully understood and) requires further study? This section was rewritten in draft-07, following the feedback received during IETF last call. Basically, we stopped being lazy and actually did the study. And took a lot of the text that Lorenzo provided. -- Christian Huitema