>>>>> On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 12:19:16 -0400,
>>>>> Thomas Narten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Is the above a reasonable way forward? (Individual responses, even if
> they are along the lines of "fine with me" would be appreciated, as
> this document is needed soon to meet a 3GPP deadline).
I'm personally okay with the change, but my honest impression is that
preferring temporary addresses is overkill.
Some detailed, random thoughts:
It may be true that there are people who are concerned about privacy
leakage due to fixed interface IDs. But is the group really large
that can affect all other's behavior? I implemented RFC 3041 on the
KAME stack over a year ago and FreeBSD 4.4 shipped with the
implementation last summar, but I've never heard of a user who is
actually using it for daily use.
Of course, the fact I've never seen such a user does not necessarily
mean there is actually no user. But I'm quite confident there are
only few real requirements for the privacy extension at this moment.
So, we do not have to be in a hurry to prefer the temporary address by
default.
As for the impacts on the applications' behavior, I don't worry so
much. I've configured my laptop to prefer temporary addresses over a
year (for experiences - I'm not a privacy-conscious guy), and I've
never seen a trouble with the environment. I admit I'm only using a
limited type of applications (and we cannot be sure about future
applications), but I believe it covers a certain amount of today's
major applications, including pop client, smtp client, www client, ftp
client, ssh client, and DNS resolver. In particular, I don't worry
about the "relatively short lifetime" through the experience. The
lack of reverse lookups may be a bit more serious, but, IMO, this
issue is not necessarily specific to the temporary vs public issue and
should be discussed in a wider framework.
BTW: even if we go with the change, I think the following part should
be revised.
> One possible heuristic
> for distinguishing these cases is to assume that an application
> that invokes a passive open (as its first network usage) is a
> server, while an application that first invokes an active open be
> assumed to be a client.
As some other guy pointed out, real world examples are not that
simple.
JINMEI, Tatuya
Communication Platform Lab.
Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
