I agree with this resolution. Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-----Original Message----- From: Ralph Droms [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2006 5:36 AM To: Suresh Krishnan Cc: ipv6@ietf.org; Templin, Fred L; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 Subject: Re: DHCP for privacy addresses (was: RE: Is there any provisionin privacy addressing ...) Suresh - I think Jinmei-san and I have come to agreement on replacement text in section 2.4 (see below). - Ralph On 8/31/06 2:21 AM, "JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 06:13:17 -0400, >>>>>> Ralph Droms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > >> I'm sorry for introducing other recommendations into your thread. I >> forwarded comments from a private exchange about the draft. I'll separate >> the other recommendations out into a different thread. > >> I don't have a strong opinion about your text, either and perhaps brevity is >> a virtue. How about: > >> One way to avoid having a static non-changing address is to use >> DHCPv6 [DHCPV6] for obtaining addresses. Section 12 of RFC 3315 >> discusses the use of DHCPv6 for the assignment and management >> of "temporary addresses", which are never renewed and provide the same >> property of temporary addresses described in this document with regards >> to the privacy concern. > > I'm fine with this text. We might want to replace "RFC 3315" with > [DHCPV6] for consistency though. I agree with replacing RFC 3315 with [DHCPV6]. > > JINMEI, Tatuya > Communication Platform Lab. > Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
