Subject: Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-non-stable-iids-03.txt

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:06:12 +0000

Folks,

We've published a revision of our I-D:
<https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gont-6man-non-stable-iids-03.txt>

It incorporates a number of clarifications in response to Dave Plonka's
feedback.

Dave: Please do let us know if you're happy with this rev.

Thanks!

Best regards,
Fernando

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-gont-6man-non-stable-iids-03.txt
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 01:23:26 -0700
From: [email-masked]
To: Madeleine Garcia Corbo <[email-masked]>, Christian
Huitema <[email-masked]>, Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>,
Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>, Madelen Corbo
<[email-masked]>, Guillermo Gont <[email-masked]>

A new version of I-D, draft-gont-6man-non-stable-iids-03.txt
has been successfully submitted by Fernando Gont and posted to the
IETF repository.

Name:		draft-gont-6man-non-stable-iids
Revision:	03
Title:		Recommendation on Temporary IPv6 Interface Identifiers
Document date:	2018-03-21
Group:		Individual Submission
Pages:		11
URL:
https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gont-6man-non-stable-iids-03.txt
Status:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gont-6man-non-stable-iids/
Htmlized:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-6man-non-stable-iids-03
Htmlized:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gont-6man-non-stable-iids
Diff:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-gont-6man-non-stable-iids-03

Abstract:
   This document specifies a set of requirements for generating
   temporary addresses, and clarifies the stability requirements for
   IPv6 addresses, allowing for the use of only temporary addresses.

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

The IETF Secretariat

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 08:11:51 +1300

> Dave: Please do let us know if you're happy with this rev.

This isn't Dave, but I'm happy - except that you repeatedly use
the phrase "(statistically) different" and I think it needs a sentence
of explanation (presumably something like "required to be different
with high probability").

    Brian

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2018 17:22:00 +0000

Hi, Brian,

Thanks so much for your feedback! In-line...

On 03/21/2018 07:11 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> This isn't Dave,

:-) Yep.. I explicitly ringed Dave because he had "objected" the current
text. :-)

> but I'm happy - except that you repeatedly use

How about something like:

'NOTE:
 "Statistically different" means that the equality of two values cannot
be caused by anything else other than random chance'

(this seems more general, since "with high probability" somehow implies
a normal distribution of values which, while expected, need not be the
case).

Thoughts?

-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [email-masked]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 08:34:50 +1300

OK for me.

Regards
   Brian

---

From: Dave Plonka <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2018 14:24:45 +0000

Yes, this looks good, Fernando.

Thanks for doing this work for the community. I particularly like that
everything here supports the "kIP" IPv6 address anonymisation work we
presented in MAPRG, e.g., to help with EU's GDPR.

I will think more about what we might say instead of "(statistically)
different," and let you know if I come up with somethings non-parenthetical
that clearly captures what (I think) we mean by this.

Does "probably different" work, in anyone's opinion?

Regardless of whether we use "statistically" or something else, we should
be able to define this oft-used phrase in the draft itself.

If we keep "statistically different," I suggest removing the parentheses
and defining it as: "having high likelihood to be different, e.g. 99% of
the time."
(That it is a value we used in our aforementioned manuscript to define
"plausibly random"... Other percentage values are fine.)

Thanks,
Dave

A unit/ typo? "Temporary address (e.g., a temporary address)."

On Mar 21, 2018 9:16 AM, "Fernando Gont" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [email-masked]
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 24 Mar 2018 07:57:34 +1300

> "plausibly random"... Other percentage values are fine.)

I think that with a length of at least (say) 40 bits and at most 64,
we can go for  something more ambitious. Even 40 bits
is about 10**12.

(No prize for mentioning the birthday paradox. We're talking about the
probability of one particular IID matching another.)

Regards
   Brian

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 06:45:05 +0100

On 03/23/2018 02:24 PM, Dave Plonka wrote:
> different," and let you know if I come up with somethings
> non-parenthetical that clearly captures what (I think) we mean by this.
> 

"probably different" doesn't seems to convey the desired meaning....

> Regardless of whether we use "statistically" or something else, we
> should be able to define this oft-used phrase in the draft itself.
> 

The problem is that this phrase says, IMO, more than it needs to say
(e.g., talk about the actual probability of collisions), and using terms
that are less formal (e.g. "likelyhood").

What this document wants is that you don't systematically use e.g. the
same IID for generating multiple addresses at once, as in RFC4941.

> A unit/ typo? "Temporary address (e.g., a temporary address)." 

Yep, fixed.

Thanks!

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 06:52:04 +0100

Folks,

FWIW, I have posted an update based on the result of this thread.

Rev here: <https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-gont-6man-non-stable-iids-04.txt>

Diff here:
<https://tools.ietf.org//rfcdiff?url1=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-gont-6man-non-stable-iids-03.txt&url2=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-gont-6man-non-stable-iids-04.txt>

Please do let us know if you think this version is okay.

Thanks!

Cheers,
Fernando

On 03/23/2018 02:24 PM, Dave Plonka wrote:
> On Mar 21, 2018 9:16 AM, "Fernando Gont" <[email-masked]
> <mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:
> 
>     Folks,
> 
>     <https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gont-6man-non-stable-iids-03.txt
>     <https://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-gont-6man-non-stable-iids-03.txt>>
> 
>     From: [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     To: Madeleine Garcia Corbo <[email-masked]
>     <mailto:[email-masked]>>, Christian
>     Huitema <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>, Fernando
>     Gont <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>,
>     Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]
>     <mailto:[email-masked]>>, Madelen Corbo
>     <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>,
>     Guillermo Gont <[email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>>
> 
> 
>     <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gont-6man-non-stable-iids/>
>     Htmlized:
>     <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-6man-non-stable-iids-03>
>     Htmlized:
>     https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gont-6man-non-stable-iids <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-gont-6man-non-stable-iids>
>     Diff:
>     <https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-gont-6man-non-stable-iids-03>
> 
>     Abstract:
>     until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org
>     <http://tools.ietf.org>.
> 
>     The IETF Secretariat
> 
> 
>     [email-masked] <mailto:[email-masked]>
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 06:53:33 +0100

> probability of one particular IID matching another.)

As long as that is the result of random chance, it's fine. -- i.e., we
don't really have requirements for uniqueness, per se.

Thanks!

Cheers,

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 08:19:32 +1300

This version looks good to me.

Regards
   Brian