On 2011-03-13 00:11, Fernando Gont wrote: > On 09/03/2011 03:49 p.m., Brian E Carpenter wrote: >>> I don't think it solves what it thinks it solves, but if this REALLY >>> should be implemented, it's my initial thinking that the H flag should >>> be a MUST demand to only have ONE and only one MAC-based IPv6 address >>> according to EUI64. I would appreciate some reasoning in the draft why >>> this was chosen as a SHOULD option. >> For the reason I just gave against the disable-private flag: this >> violates the host's right to use an untraceable address. >> >> It may be that in corporate deployments, that right can be removed. >> But removing it for public subscribers would be a political blunder. > > The requirements in draft-gont-6man-managing-privacy-extensions are > SHOULDs, for this very reason. > > How about including some text that explicitly states that a host can > always override the desired policy (with a system toggle) if it desires > to do so?
Yes, I think so, clearly labelled as "Privacy Considerations". Otherwise we'll just have a re-run of the Jasmine thread right here. Brian -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
