Subject: Brian Haberman's Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-16: (with DISCUSS)

From: "Brian Haberman" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 04:34:26 -0800

Brian Haberman has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-16: Discuss

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/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I am taking the somewhat curious route of raising a DISCUSS on a document
that I am shepherding.  I will return to a Yes when these issues are
resolved.  Thomas Narten raised a good point that this document does not
mention the work published in RFCs 4436 and 6059 (from the concluded DNA
WG).  Two of the points he raised are worth addressing in this document
prior to publication.

1. [Resolved] - Storing addresses is going to raise privacy issues.

2. DNA provides some ability to manage the Network_ID component of the
cryptographic hash.  For wired networks, that may be quite useful as long
as the Network_ID can be stored securely.