Subject: Stewart Bryant's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-16: (with COMMENT)

From: "Stewart Bryant" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 04:47:18 -0800

Stewart Bryant has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-16: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

As Adrian says, this does not look like it impacts the routing systems so
based on a quick skim, no objection.

I am, however, left pondering as to whether a simple call to the system
RNG wouldn't work well enough most of the time.

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 12:25:12 -0300

Hi, Stewart,

Thanks so much for you input! Please find my comments in-line...

Because the resulting addresses wouldn't be stable. And if they are not
stable, things like ACLs and anything that benefits from stable
addresses wouldn't work as expected (that's why e.g. many folks disable
RFC 4941)

Thanks!

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