Subject: comments on draft-huitema-6man-random-addresses-00

From: 神明達哉 <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 13:22:46 -0700

I have a few small comments on draft-huitema-6man-random-addresses-00:

- Section 3.4:

   Tracking over time is prevented if the Net_IFace parameter is set to
   the current link layer address.  In that case, the stable addresses
   will have exactly the same lifetime as the link-layer identifiers.
   This SHOULD be the default solution for mobile hosts.

  I'm afraid this SHOULD could violate the sense of a MUST regarding
  Net_Iface of RFC7217:

   o  It MUST be constant across system bootstrap sequences and other
      network events (e.g., bringing another interface up or down).

  Although the RFC isn't very specific about "other network events",
  it seems to me that it generally intends to not change for events
  like changing a link-layer address, e.g, from the following
  statement:

   Net_Iface identifiers that are attached to the NIC, such that a
   removable NIC always gets the same IPv6 address, irrespective of the
   system communications port to which it is attached.

  I'm not making this comment to mean we cannot say that it SHOULD be
  the default, but I think it would be helpful if the draft mentions
  the implication and (if necessary) states that this draft updates
  RFC7217 in that the sense of a MUST is now loosened.

- The draft uses the term "link-local" many times.  I suspect it
  should actually be "link-layer".  One example is this:

   Using randomized link-local addresses doesn't change that.
   (Section 3.2)

- A very minor editorial nit: Section 3.5, second paragraph:
  s/is a host/if a host/
  s/configure but doen't use/configures but doesn't use/

   [...]  This is
   also true is a host uses temporary addresses and configure but doen't
   use a stable address.  The address configuration will require

--
JINMEI, Tatuya

---

From: Christian Huitema <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 20:51:32 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of ????
>       network events (e.g., bringing another interface up or down).

Yes, that's a direct contradiction, and it should be presented as such. Definitely something to do better in the next version of the draft.

The problem is that RFC 7217 values stability and tries very hard to keep the IID constant, while privacy requires that the IID changes each time the user decides to hide. 

>   ...

Yes.  Will do that.

>    use a stable address.  The address configuration will require

Thanks.

-- Christian Huitema