On 05/03/2013 07:15 PM, Hosnieh Rafiee wrote: > > "We are on the same page. Probably you read the following proposal. > That email and his defensive reaction was because he thinks I want to > have his proposal.
My reaction (frustration) is because you make assertions such as this. e.g. how can you possibly know what I *think*? In other emails you have not only systematically ignored my responses, but also made statements like "you said X", when I never said such a thing. That's where my response came from. Besides, many times, others and myself have tried to explain that as with most thinks in the engineering field, there are trade-offs. You argue that draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses doesn't have any impact on privacy. But me and others have explained otherwise. And I have even provided a reference to a document posted by the IAB which essentially argues in favor of producing stable IIDs based on a hash (in replacement of the embedded MAC address), and also explains why RFC4941 addresses are employed in addition to stable addresses (otherwise, applications that rely on stable addresses would break). Eventually, I guess that we need to agree to disagree on these technical matters (but even then I'd still appreciate that you do not statements on my behalf based on things I've not said or thought). Cheers, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: [email protected] PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
