Subject: AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 11:42:32 -0400

All,
     I have completed my AD evaluation for
draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses and only have a few
comments/questions that I would like to get some feedback on...

1. It would be useful to include an *informative* reference or two for
candidate PRFs.

2. Given the opaque bits discussion in section 5, I think it would be
good to include a reference to the 6man-ug draft to provide the
justification.

3. Section 6 discusses the benefits of using the DAD_Counter in the PRF
call, but I think the draft should also mention the downsides to not
maintaining that variable in non-volatile memory over reboots.
Specifically, the scenario where a node used IDGEN_RETRIES attempts on
the previous boot to get a valid address and during the current boot
will fail if it needs IDGEN_RETRIES+1 tries and DAD_Counter info is not
stored.

4. I am agnostic on this one, but want some feedback.  Should the
reference to the address-generation-privacy draft be normative given
that it contains the necessary background info supporting this approach?

Once we agree on these points, we can move the draft along in the
publication process.

Regards,
Brian