On 05/29/2013 04:00 AM, Dave Thaler wrote: >> >> What does draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses has to do with CGAs? > > 1) Both give "random-per-network" addresses, using Alissa's terminology.
CGA's doesn't seem to aim at stable-per-network addresses. For instance, the modifier is expected to be random. > 2) Both generate an IP address using a secret + a network prefix + a DAD > counter + other information. But both have completely different goals. CGAs have the goal of encoding a public key, whereas stable-privacy has the goal of producing meaningles random bits. > So it comes down to what was claimed, which I don't know offhand. > >> Has MS or Ericsson patented the use of PRFs? > > Pseudorandom functions themselves are well known. Some folks (don't know) > might > have patented using PRFs in novel ways to do specific things. What I did was to apply Bellovin's RFC1948. So any IPR claim on draft-ietf-6man-stable-addresses that predates RFC1948 and that's is not Bellovin's is claiming credit for somebody else's work. 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
