>>>>> On Thu, 13 Jun 2002 15:45:17 +0200,
>>>>> Brian E Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 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.
(though I'm not making an objection to what you're sayign) let me
clarify the issue (mostly for myself) once more. We're perhaps mixing
up host issues and application issues. In my understanding,
1. whether or not privacy is desired is a per-host (or
per-administrator) issue, not a per-application issue; if the main
user (likely the administrator) of a host really wants the privacy,
the user wants the privacy apply to all applications on the host,
even if some of the applications do not work well due to
the characteristics of temporary addresses.
2. an application may not work well with temporary addresses.
3. there are only few privacy-conscious users, and there will few too
in the near future.
So, the specification should be:
- the privacy extension draft should clearly say that it is optional
to (support and) configure temporary addresses and that the default
is not configuring temporary addresses. the draft should also
describe the troublesome cases with temporary addresses to
communicate the risk of using them for administrators.
- the address selection draft should say *if temporary addresses are
configured on the host* the temporary addresses should be preferred.
It should also note that whether or not configuring temporary
addresses are optional and the default is not configuring them.
- we'll not necessarily need a per-connection switch to change the
logic of preferring temporary or public addresses, because if we
want privacy or not is rather a per-host issue. we MAY add such a
knob, but it does not have to be a MUST.
Can this be a compromise for this issue?
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
