----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian E Carpenter" <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com> To: "Dave Thaler" <dtha...@microsoft.com> Cc: "Fernando Gont" <fg...@si6networks.com>; <6...@ietf.org> Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2013 12:41 AM
> 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. I agree; it does the job. I seem to have spent a lot of my working life disentangling identifiers that have been overloaded with technical detail that adds nothing to their use as identifiers and becomes plain misleading further down the line. The namespace here is that set by RFC4941 "Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6" to which this is an addition/enhancement/alternative and that is what the title should convey, ie the title should be similar, to show that the two are closely related, but different, to highlight what has changed. Adding "stable" does the job. Tom Petch > 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------
