On 10/08/2013 11:01, Dave Thaler wrote: > 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?
Nah. Too complex for a title, and "random" is a bad word - you should always say pseudo-random or (more pedantic) uniformly distributed. IMHO the current title is clearest. Brian > > -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 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
