Subject: Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-address-generation-privacy-07: (with COMMENT)

From: "Benoit Claise" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Aug 2015 03:25:16 -0700

Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-address-generation-privacy-07: 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 https://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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-ipv6-address-generation-privacy/

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

Thanks for this (analysis in) this document and also the section 5.1
"network operation". 
I like table 1 very much.

- Fine with the new proposal for the text below (I had the same remark):

 o  Manual configuration

      *  IPv4 address

      *  Service port

      *  Wordy

      *  Low-byte

- DHT = Distributed Hash Table, I guess

- Section 3, "The first three of these rely on the
   attacker first gaining knowledge of the target host's IID."

Host's IID? Which one is this from the terminology section, the constant
IDD, the stable IID, or the temporary IID?
I guess, all of them depending on the use case, right? Please make it
clear.
Alternatively, you might to add a "host IDD" definition, , or "IID": a
generic term for constant IDD, the stable IID, and the temporary IID.
I'm after some terms consistency here. I see some other instances, such
as: "host's interface identifier", "host's IIDs"