----- Original Message ----- From: "Fernando Gont" <fg...@si6networks.com> To: "Alissa Cooper" <acoo...@cdt.org> Cc: <6man-cha...@tools.ietf.org>; "Brian Haberman" <br...@innovationslab.net>; <6...@ietf.org>; "Dave Thaler" <dtha...@microsoft.com>; "Ray Hunter" <v6...@globis.net>; "Fernando Gont" <ferna...@gont.com.ar>; "tom.petch" <cfi...@dial.pipex.com>; "Christian Huitema" <huit...@microsoft.com>; "He Xuan" <x...@hitachi.cn> Sent: Thursday, June 06, 2013 9:02 PM On 06/06/2013 03:40 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> For instance, Section B.1 explicitly says so (and this type of >> attack is not meant to be solved by stable-privacy-addresses). <snip>
> I realize how this organization came about > but it seems like it would make a little more sense to have each of > the distinct threat models clearly described in one place in the body > of the document, followed by a discussion of which threats the > mechanism mitigates and which it does not. I'd personally prefer this not to be in the body of the document. For the most part, because I think that we might benefit of a separate document that does an analysis of all IID generation techniques, rather than only this one (I had planned to wok on such a document even before this whole discussion came up). To some extent, including such whole discussion here looks a bit side-tracking. But I'd love to hear what you and others think about it. <tp> Yes! but I'd rather see this published sooner rather than later. I have always found this a complicated I-D to read, and each successive versions seems harder, as more and more gets added. Yes, what is added is related and is about the problems of IPv6, but that is a bottomless pit:-) I would rather you has stopped a version or two ago, leaving some of the compare and contrast, and the unsolved problems, at least in detail, for another day. (But the Introduction is better in this version). When I look back at the comments on this in the recent past, I do wonder if perhaps there is an element of unconscious hindering, of asking for more not because it will make the document noticeably better but rather as a way of saying something like um, I am not too sure about this going forward. Leaving the psychology aside, I would like this to progress as is. I believe that there will more comments that will need changes in the later stages of review, perhaps a GenArt or security directorate, or the dreaded IETF Last Call. Tom Petch Thanks! Best regards, -- 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 -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
