> > > This section > > > should also discuss options for providing privacy IIDs via DHCPv6 > > > (M=1 in RA). > > > > I have no problem adding such a reference. The point is to say what > > privacy considerations need to be addressed in a doc, rather than > > details of *how* to address them, in order to leave maximum freedom. > > But providing examples as informative references as you suggest is a > > good thing. > > I checked and there is no reference (RFC or draft) as far as anyone I asked > knows. > So I didn't mention DHCPv6 in this document, I left it for 6man documents to > discuss since it's not specific to 6lo.
I've now found https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7824#section-4.1 which explains why at least today DHCPv6 is not used for temporary addresses. Based on that discussion, I'm thinking it's best to keep it out of this doc, but let me know if others disagree (and if so, what text you would suggest after reading that short section). I will ask this during my slot in 6lo. Dave _______________________________________________ 6lo mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lo
