>>>>> On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 10:38:24 -0400,
>>>>> Margaret Wasserman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> The proposed text is trying to say that temporary addresses are preferable
>> but that there might be issues (such as applications having problems)
>> which consistitute a good enough reason to not follow the default.
>> Thus there is significant freedom for implementors to use their best
>> judgement based on their knowledge about the applications.
> Is it optional for a vendor to implement temporary addresses? Is it optional
> for a user to configure site-local addresses on a box (or perhaps even for
> a vendor to support them)?
Good point...I thought in this context we assume vendors implement
temporary addresses and users configure temporary addresses by
default. Otherwise, the original concern:
"The IESG is concerned that if temporary addresses are not enabled by
default, they won't see widespread use in practice."
would not make sense.
If, for example, the premise is implementing and configuring temporary
addresses are both optional, I'll be just okay with the proposed
change. Users (or administrators) who dare to configure temporary
addresses under such an environments should have a strong desire for
privacy. So, even if the source address selection prefers public
address by default, such users will explicitly (try to) reverse the
logic for every communication. This makes the default meaningless,
and thus preferring temporary address should make much sense.
(though the premise would be meaningless according to the original
motivation; widespread use of temporary addresses)
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
