Technically unpredictable is probably a better term, but random implies that.
I'll leave it to the authors to determine the best language. (I'm ok with what
the 04 draft now says.)
- Bernie
-----Original Message-----
From: Fernando Gont [mailto:fgont(_at_)si6networks(_dot_)com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2016 4:39 AM
To: Bernie Volz (volz) <volz(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com>; Robert Sparks
<rjsparks(_at_)nostrum(_dot_)com>; Tomek Mrugalski
<tomasz(_dot_)mrugalski(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>; General Area Review Team
<gen-art(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
dhcwg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org;
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-privacy(_dot_)all(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-privacy-03
Bernie,
On 02/15/2016 06:37 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
Perhaps we should get away from whether something is easy or difficult
to implement or whether the algorithm may be more (or less) efficient.
I think the point of this material is to ENCOURAGE random assignment
rather than sequential to improve privacy- so keep it at that. Let
implementers worry about how efficient an algorithm is?
There are a number of operational and security/privacy considerations that
depend on the actual algorithm that you employ.
I'm not sure what you mean by "random". IID=random() everytime an address has
to be leased? -- or do you really mean "unpredictable"?.
At the end of the day, what you want is to specify desired properties.
Besides, assignment of sequential addresses should be banned. They have always
been a bad idea (see
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gont-predictable-protocol-ids>) and they
shouldn't even be considered an option.
Thanks,
--
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont(_at_)si6networks(_dot_)com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492