On 04/29/2013 05:00 PM, Doug Barton wrote: > I only peripherally followed the early discussion about this topic (only > so many hours in the day). I confess that I never "got" the need for > this, but lots of people seemed enthusiastic about it, so I put it in > the category of things to figure out later. :) > > Now that there is non-trivial pushback on the draft becoming an RFC I > have taken another look, and I still don't get it.
I don't see pushback, but rather feedback and request for improvements -- which is a normal (and healthy) part of the publication process. > Let's assume that > there are 2 broad categories that cover a statistically significant > percentage of the possible use cases, home and business. I don't see any > scenario where the home user would be benefited from stable privacy > addresses beyond what 4941 already provides. Please see the appendix in draft-ietf-stable-privacy-addresses. (and keep in mind that Windows replaces the traditional slaac addresses just to avoid address scanning attacks). > Assuming my use case analysis is correct (and I would not be surprised > if it were not), Not wanting to use temporary addresses (RC4941) does not imply that you want to paste a super-cookie into your IPv6 addresses. Besides, as discussed in the appendix of draft-ietf-stable-privacy-addresses, RFC 4941 and this document are, to some extent, orthogonal. Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: fg...@si6networks.com PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492 -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
