Subject: 6man w.g. last call for <draft-ietf-6man-rfc4941bis-05.txt>

From: Bob Hinden <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2020 15:17:41 -0800

Hello,

This message starts a new two week 6MAN Working Group Last Call on advancing:

       Title           : Privacy Extensions for Stateless Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6
       Authors         : Fernando Gont
                         Suresh Krishnan
                         Thomas Narten
                         Richard Draves
	Filename        : draft-ietf-6man-rfc4941bis-05.txt
	Pages           : 21
	Date            : 2019-12-10

   https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-6man-rfc4941bis-05

as a Proposed Standard.

Substantive comments and statements of support for publishing this document should be directed to the mailing list. Editorial suggestions can be sent to the author.  This last call will
end on 23 January 2020.

Thanks,
Bob & Ole

---

From: Erik Kline <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 18:40:01 -0800

S3.2.2: Is SHA-1 still a reasonable recommendation, given recent events?

S3.5: Is the specific mention of ethernet required (or is that text just an
example)?

S3.3/3.5/general: it might be fun to call out that implementations are free
to create a temporary address for use by, say, only a single application.
The implementation would need to make sure that only the given application
can use the address, that the address is expired if the application
terminates/releases the address before default lifetime expires, and may
want to make some API available for applications interact with this
capability.

On Thu, Jan 9, 2020 at 3:17 PM Bob Hinden <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Substantive comments and statements of support for publishing this
> document should be directed to the mailing list. Editorial suggestions can
> be sent to the author.  This last call will
> end on 23 January 2020.
>
> Thanks,
> Bob & Ole
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email-masked]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 03:48:56 -0300

> S3.2.2: Is SHA-1 still a reasonable recommendation, given recent events?

I'd say "no". So we should just keep the suggestion for SHA-256. (good 
grief!)

> S3.5: Is the specific mention of ethernet required (or is that text just 
> an example)?

It is an example, but it is being overly specific, unnecessarily. HOw 
about if we s/ethernet/network/? Or maybe s/ethernet/link/? (which seems 
more specific and appropriate for this example)

> S3.3/3.5/general: it might be fun to call out that implementations are 
> free to create a temporary address for use by, say, only a single 
> application.  The implementation would need to make sure that only the 
> given application can use the address, that the address is expired if 
> the application terminates/releases the address before default lifetime 
> expires, and may want to make some API available for applications 
> interact with this capability.

While I do agree that being able to generate IPv6 addresses upon 
application request would be a sensible thing to have, if anything, I'd 
probably flag this in the "Future Work" section, since there would be so 
may things that would be left out of *this* spec (including the API)..

(One might also wonder if such addresses would be called "temporary" in 
the first place, since their life is more attached with the app, than 
with "time". I guess one might call them "ephemeral addresses"?)

Thoughts?

Thanks!

Cheers,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: [email-masked] || [email-masked]
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1