Hi, Ole, On 05/08/2012 02:42 PM, Ole Trøan wrote: > The discussion brought up some issues that we will work with the author to > resolve, in particular: > > - The current draft is written to not allow the IETF to create derivative > works. > This is incompatible with the IETF standards process. > See section 4 of http://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt
My understanding is that this is perfectly compatible with the IETF standards process, as long as this restriction is removed before posting as draft-ietf (for instance, I guess that's why it's allowed in the first place). (this restriction will be removed in the upcoming draft-ietf version, accordingly) > - The draft should not replace modified EUI-64 IIDs. It intents to provide > an alternative to > IEEE MAC based modified EUI-64 IIDs. Agreed. > The draft should not update RFC4191 and RFC4862 Agreed. However, it looks like this document should update RFC2464, though. Thoughts? > - The proposed mechanism has merit separately from the perceived "security" > benefits, > because it creates modified EUI-64 Internet Identifiers that are not IEEE > Mac based and > eliminates any concern about host tracking based on the IEEE MAC addresses. I agree with this -- e.g. using the interface index in the hash leads to stable NIC-independent addresses that don't vary even if you replace the NIC. Is *this* what I should note in the next rev of the document? Thanks! Best regards, -- Fernando Gont e-mail: [email protected] || [email protected] PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
