JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 wrote: > > >>>>> 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.
But in fact that isn't a correct assumption. It's only a certain class of systems (today's pure-client style PCs or their equivalents) for which the privacy aspect of temporary addresses makes any sense. For them, a SHOULD rule for preferring temporary addresses makes sense. But many other hosts (servers and anything that wants to break out of the client/server restriction) won't use temporary addresses and will use other privacy mechanisms; so for them it's simply irrelevant. I think that is the answer to my colleague Roy Brabson's objection to the proposed change - hosts that have the problem he describes won't be using temporary addresses anyway. And anyone who attempts to run server style apps on a host using temporary addresses will get all kinds of trouble anyway. But it should be a SHOULD. Brian - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Brian E Carpenter Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM On assignment at the IBM Zurich Laboratory, Switzerland Board Chairman, Internet Society http://www.isoc.org INET 2002, Washington, DC, 18-21 June http://www.inet2002.org <<=== seats still available! > 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) > > X-Mozilla-Status: 0009 > 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] > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
