On Friday, February 12, 2016 11:26 AM, JINMEI, Tatuya wrote:
Brian Carpenter called for an attention to Section 4.5.2 of the draft:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/J_SnGxd2JunlpOeL4JprV03UA7s
so I'm responding to it.
4.5.2. Prefix delegation
The interaction between prefix delegation and anonymity require
further study. For now, the simple solution is to avoid using prefix
delegation when striving for anonymity. When using the anonymity
profiles, clients SHOULD NOT use IA_PD, the prefix delegation form of
address assignment.
I'm not sure what Brian tried to indicate in his message, but at least this
section looks vague to me about the rationale for the "SHOULD NOT". It's
not obvious to me how IA_PD is worse than IA_NA in terms of privacy. Is this
a "SHOULD NOT" simply because the "interaction"
(is not yet fully understood and) requires further study?
This section was rewritten in draft-07, following the feedback received during
IETF last call. Basically, we stopped being lazy and actually did the study.
And took a lot of the text that Lorenzo provided.
-- Christian Huitema