Your earlier text included the line:
"A MAC address SHOULD be of length 48 decimal."
Even if the SHOULD were not capitalized, that would look like an effort
in this document to specify the length of a MAC address. With the
capitalization, it appears even more strongly to be such an effort.
One of your suggestions removed that text, which would be a good way to
resolve this problem. Eric's question is based on the text you sent,
which is taken directly from the document.
Yours,
Joel
On 4/17/19 10:29 AM, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
Le 17/04/2019 à 16:24, Eric Gray a écrit :
Adding to what Joel said, why are we attempting to define how long a
MAC address SHOULD be?
We are attempting to define how long a better privacy Interface ID (not
MAC) should be.
There is a difference between an Interface ID and a MAC address.
An Interface ID is what to put near a prefix to make an address. For
example, 3 in 192.168.1.3 is an Interface ID.
The longer IID the better privacy, intuitively speaking.
Why do you think we try to define how long a MAC address should be?
Alex
-----Original Message-----
From: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> On Behalf Of Joel M. Halpern
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2019 9:39 AM
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <int-dir@xxxxxxxx> <int-dir@xxxxxxxx>; IETF Discussion
<ietf@xxxxxxxx>; its@xxxxxxxx;
draft-ietf-ipwave-ipv6-over-80211ocb.all@xxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: 118
Trimmed.
On 4/17/19 3:46 AM, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
....
I propose the following:
OLD:
A randomized Interface ID has the same characteristics of a
randomized MAC address, except the length in bits. A MAC
address SHOULD be of length 48 decimal. An Interface ID
SHOULD be of length 64 decimal for all types of IPv6
addresses. In the particular case of IPv6 link-local
addresses, the length of the Interface ID MAY be 118
decimal.
NEW:
A randomized Interface ID has the same characteristics of a
randomized MAC address, except the length in bits. A MAC
address SHOULD be of length 48 decimal. An Interface ID
SHOULD be of length specified in other documents.
Do you disagree?
"SHOULD be of a length specified in other documents" wihtout any
reference to what the other documents are or how to find them seems
like a recipe for implementor error. Can we be somewhat more specific?
Thank you,
Joel
