Skip to main content

Analysis of the 64-bit Boundary in IPv6 Addressing
RFC 7421

Yes

(Brian Haberman)
(Ted Lemon)

No Objection

(Alia Atlas)
(Barry Leiba)
(Benoît Claise)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Richard Barnes)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.

(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (2014-10-29 for -07)
This is a nice document, thanks for taking the time to write it.

= Section 1 =
"The bits in the IID have no meaning and the entire identifier should
   be treated as an opaque value [RFC7136]."

I understand what this means based on RFC7136, but it seems like it would be a little more clear to re-use the language from that document directly, e.g., 

"The bits in the IID may have significance only in the process of deriving the IID and once it is derived the entire identifier should be treated as an opaque value [RFC7136]."

= Section 4.5 =
This is probably not worth mentioning in the draft, but I'll write it down since the thought occurred to me: it's conceivable to argue that there could be a privacy benefit of shortening the IID, if it became so short that a hardware address could not be embedded in it. This benefit is quite obviously outweighed by the drawbacks you already describe in this section I think, but just food for thought.

(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -06)

                            

(Ted Lemon; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -07)

                            

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2014-10-29 for -07)
Section 4.2

   o  Router implementations: Router implementors might interpret IETF
      standards such as [RFC6164] and [RFC7136] to indicate that

Maybe avoid any accidental confusion by using "specifications" rather
than "standards"

(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -07)

                            

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -07)

                            

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -07)

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -07)

                            

(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -07)

                            

(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2014-10-29 for -07)
The SecDir review looks good, thank you for your work on the draft.  
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05118.html

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -07)

                            

(Richard Barnes; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -07)