Subject: missing minor error in draft-ietf-ipv6-privacy-addrs-v2-04

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 2006 21:05:52 +0900

I've just noticed that the latest draft of
draft-ietf-ipv6-privacy-addrs-v2 has not reflected a previous discussion.

See the first point of this:
http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/ipng/msg01005.html

Rephrasing it for the latest draft would be as follows:

In section 3.3, it states:

   1.  Process the Prefix Information Option as defined in [ADDRCONF],
       either creating a new public address or adjusting the lifetimes
       of existing addresses, both public and temporary.  If a received
       option will extend the lifetime of a public address, the
       lifetimes of temporary addresses should be extended, subject to
       the overall constraint that no temporary addresses should ever
       remain "valid" or "preferred" for a time longer than
       (TEMP_VALID_LIFETIME - DESYNC_FACTOR) or (TEMP_PREFERRED_LIFETIME
       - DESYNC_FACTOR) respectively.  The configuration variables
       TEMP_VALID_LIFETIME and TEMP_PREFERRED_LIFETIME correspond to
       approximate target lifetimes for temporary addresses.

But "(TEMP_VALID_LIFETIME - DESYNC_FACTOR)" should actually be just
TEMP_VALID_LIFETIME because there is no timing issue for regeneration
on valid lifetimes.

The main author at that time (Rich Draves) agreed this point:
http://www.atm.tut.fi/list-archive/ipng/msg01097.html

Unless I miss something, I still believe just using
TEMP_VALID_LIFETIME is more reasonable, and this document should
incorporate the change before publication.

(I myself had forgotten the past discussion, and have changed our
implementation with the seemingly redundant DESYNC_FACTOR...)

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					[email-masked]

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2006 16:14:03 -0400

Hi Jinmei,
   I will make the change by taking out the DESYNC_FACTOR from the Valid 
Lifetime calculation.

Thanks
Suresh