Hi, Ole, On 08/12/2013 05:59 AM, Ole Troan wrote: >>> >>> I will observe that Alissa's term "random per-network" isn't in any of the >>> possibilities >>> below and the reasons given wouldn't apply if that term were used. Perhaps >>> that >>> could be used in a title? >> >> Nah. Too complex for a title, and "random" is a bad word - you should always >> say pseudo-random or (more pedantic) uniformly distributed. >> >> IMHO the current title is clearest. > > these addresses have the following properties: > - stable per link > - randomly generated as opposed to based on a MAC address. > (making scanning attacks harder, makes tracking across links harder) > - intended to replace existing EUI-64 identifiers > > truth in advertising; given that these addresses are meant to be used 'in > public', what is > "privacy enhanced" about them?
One thing is some node using an address to communicate with you. Another thing is that other node being able to learn other information by means of such address. -- e.g, since the IID changes from one network to another, you cannot track the device. > the use of "privacy" confuses it with RFC4941 addresses, which these > addresses do not replace. Actually, RFC4941 are called "privacy extensions" (which isn't incorrect), since those temporary addresses have interesting privacy features. Probably, people assumed temporary == privacy because, before stable-privacy-addresses you didn't have any other privacy-enhanced addresses. Both RFC4941 and stable-privacy-addreses are "privacy addresess" -- RFC4941 are temporary, while stable-privacy are stable. > "Stable per-network Addresses for IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration > (SPN-SLAAC)"? An address could be "stable per network" without having any interesting privacy/security features. For instance, traditional slaac addresses are "stable per network", too. Me, I don't care much about the title. However, given that folks have become used to refer to this scheme as "stable-privacy addresses", and that so far alternative titles don't seem to do a much better job, I'd leave the title "as is". 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
