Subject: RFC3041 privacy extension in nodereq

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 11:41:33 +0900

i think "MAY" is fine.  conditions where the spec is appropriate
	are spelled out enough in RFC3041.

itojun
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 04:57:25 +0200 (EET)

On Tue, 19 Nov 2002 [email-masked] wrote:
> 	i think "MAY" is fine.  

Agree.

> conditions where the spec is appropriate

Actually, they definitely *aren't* (or rather, they give a wrong
impression), see draft-dupont-ipv6-rfc3041harmful-01.txt -- new security
considerations / applicability consideration is needed.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 13:11:42 +0000

> considerations / applicability consideration is needed.

I agree with Pekka.

Regarding the node requirements themselves, I feel the main use of the 
draft is a collection of pointers to guide implementors to the rfcs they
should refer to when developing ipv6 nodes.   Thus I don't think any
policies/etc should be made here, but pointed to in the relevant rfcs.
(For example the suggestion of "cutting and pasting" policy from rfc3041 
into this doc doesn't weem right to me - keep the original docs authoritative,
and, as Pekka suggests, review these where necessary in light of experience).

tim

---

From: Jun-ichiro itojun Hagino <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 22:30:59 +0900

>> considerations / applicability consideration is needed.

	ok, then (1) we need 3041bis, and (2) node requirement may want to
	refer dupont-3041harmful too.

itojun