Hi Alain, Good points. I will try to craft text to cover this & I will send it to the list.
br, John > -----Original Message----- > From: ext Alain Durand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 29 January, 2003 19:26 > To: Loughney John (NRC/Helsinki) > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Node Requirements and 3041 > > > > On Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 05:44 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > > > > Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration > > [RFC-3041] > > SHOULD be supported. It is recommended that node behavior be > > configurable > > when they are available. > > There is a catch to this last sentence. > Using RFC3041-type addresses is IMHO not a property of node, > not a property of user context, and not even a property of > applications. > This is a property of the specific connections within each > application. > > There are a number of things that are known not to work when > RFC3041-type > addresses are in use, e.g. rlogin with the weak security provided by > .rhost files, > anti-spam filters on some mail relays, reverse DNS, etc... On > the other > hand, > masking the mac address has some good properties for some apps. > > So, having a configuration knob that is node-wide, user-wide or even > application-wide is too large, as a complex application may use > several connections, and RFC3041-type addresses may be fine for > some but damaging for others. > > So it seems to me that the sensible way to go is to have a > socket option > that application developers can use on a per socket basis. > > I think some of this discussion should be capture in the node > requirement document. > > - Alain. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- 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] --------------------------------------------------------------------
