I will observe that Alissa's term "random per-network" isn't in any of the possibilities below and the reasons given wouldn't apply if that term were used. Perhaps that could be used in a title?
-Dave > -----Original Message----- > From: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Fernando Gont > Sent: Friday, August 9, 2013 2:59 PM > To: 6...@ietf.org > Subject: draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses: Document title > > Folks, > > I has been suggested to me that we might want to change the title of this > document, and the chairs have suggested that I comment on this one on-list. > > The arguemtn, as far as I can tell, is that the current title might be > confusing > (mostly because of the confusion there is with different terminology on the > subject). > > The current title is: > > * "A method for Generating Stable Privacy-Enhanced Addresses with IPv6 > Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)" > > It conveys this key information: that the addresses are stable, and that they > are privacy-friendly > > > And the titles that have so far been suggested are: > > 1) ""Stable Addresses with IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC)" > > Me, I think this one is confusing -- for instance, IEEE-derived addresses are > stable, too. > > > 2) "Stable Addresses with IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration > (SLAAC) not derived from EUI-64 identifiers" > > This one doesn't convey the information that these addresses are privacy- > friendly. Besides, why whould we assume that every link layer can generate > addresses based on EUI-64 ientifiers? (some link layers don't have those) > > > 3) "Underived from EUI-64 Stable Addresses..." > > Same as "3)". > > > 4) "Amethod for generating stable random addresses" > > This one is also confusing, since the current scheme used by Windows > provide addresses that are random, and stable across networks. > > > Given the above options I'd stick with the current title. Besides, the > community has become used to refer to this method as "stable-privacy- > addresses".. so changing the title at this point would, IMHO, only contribute > to > confusion. > > Thoughts? > > 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 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
