Subject: Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-17: (with COMMENT)

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 17:58:49 -0800

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-17: 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for those changes.

One new comment. It'd be better to reference HMAC-SHA1 and
HMAC-SHA256 as the examples and not SHA1 and SHA256.
There are relevant security differences between those, 
depending on how you provide and process the inputs to F().
(I've not tried to figure out if ther're significant here, but the
HMAC flavours are just better and if you did use them then
I'd not even need to think about it:-)

If you're not happy to do that then rather than say that SHA1
or SHA256 can be used "for" F(), it'd be better to say that F() 
can be "baeed upon" SHA1, as that'd encompass HMAC-SHA1
or HMAC-SHA256.