Subject: RE: Node Requirements and 3041

From: Samita Chakrabarti <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 14:16:35 -0800 (PST)

Hi John,

> > If so,  would it be clearer to say something like the following ?
> > 
> > 'It is recommended that the node be configurable to turn on/off
> > the privacy extension for stateless address autoconfiguration, when
> > it is implemented.' 
> 
> It should be something like that, but I think Alain was suggesting that
> a node-based policy would not be sufficient.  It should be at least 
> application based policy, since different applications will not
> work with 3041 addresses.
> 

I agree with Alain that node-based policy is not sufficient at all and
per-socket policy is needed for an application to choose temporary or
default public address as the source address.

I  originally thought that two types of configurations are needed in the
system:

1) configure the ability to configure a privacy extension interface when
   the feature is implemented ( i.e. even when the code is there, system
   may choose not to turn on privacy extension autoconfiguration).
  
2) per-socket source address selection preference to choose the privacy
   address when the address is configured in the system.

   Also, it would be good idea to have a brief discussion on the consequences
   of using privacy extension or a pointer to the relevant section of RFC3041
   where it disucusses that would be useful for implementors to make a choice.
   
   Thanks,
   -Samita

--------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 22:11:56 -0500

Alain,

All your points are valid, but I'd argue the node requirements
document is the wrong place to have this level of detail.

Instead, 3041 should be respun with more text about these issues. I
think Node requirements would be better off (in general) just pointing
to other basic documents and let folks go there for the details. If
the details aren't there, the question should be asked whether a
revision is approriate.

Thomas

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 06:58:17 +0200

Hi all,

I will re-read 3041, craft some text, point to a relevant section
in 3041.  I'll try to get this done today.

thanks,
John

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Thomas Narten [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: 04 February, 2003 05:12
> To: Alain Durand
> Cc: Loughney John (NRC/Helsinki); [email-masked];
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Node Requirements and 3041 
> 
> 
> Alain,
>