IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-6man-default-iids Section 4 & 6.9 (DHCPv6)

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Wed, 10 August 2016 11:35 UTC

Return-Path: <volz@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EAA212D869; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 04:35:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.769
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.769 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.247, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x3LApQyqvMQs; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 04:35:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.86.72]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D682F12D7D9; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 04:35:45 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1883; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1470828945; x=1472038545; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=BQCALBx7ugSvmCiymhuLdZFuou+wuOqGJNaTsaP0kIA=; b=DNAhMwS5AhHTHDojEqysMYjMHNJkdtaLzRa4Z6dWJ64CiXD9JfWciAa3 G2QnZOa46HV/Yw5MYiyYH1f5uFZ6fZ5gLAaWuORz6eZ73B8qCcH8mRHbE eGLU/L0brzNep4Je9ldS2DY5cXXwsrMJU1Ky4oSd6DPY0F8yp6ZWnBtCZ I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0BRAgCBEKtX/4cNJK1dg0VWfKx+jCiBfSSFeQKBXjgUAQEBAQEBAV0nhF4BAQQBOj8QAgEIGB4QIRElAgQOBYgXAw8IDr0DDYQyAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBFwWIIgiCTYJDgW0QgyyCLwWZCDQBhhyGOYI8j0OILYQHg3cBHjaDem4BhysBAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,499,1464652800"; d="scan'208";a="139766697"
Received: from alln-core-2.cisco.com ([173.36.13.135]) by rcdn-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 10 Aug 2016 11:35:44 +0000
Received: from XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (xch-rcd-001.cisco.com [173.37.102.11]) by alln-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u7ABZjVX017548 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 10 Aug 2016 11:35:45 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-003.cisco.com (173.36.7.13) by XCH-RCD-001.cisco.com (173.37.102.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 06:35:44 -0500
Received: from xch-aln-003.cisco.com ([173.36.7.13]) by XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com ([173.36.7.13]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 06:35:44 -0500
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-6man-default-iids Section 4 & 6.9 (DHCPv6)
Thread-Index: AQHR4yonS2aKHoWIFECnh5Wt1IH5QqAi5eGA///ArQCAFwL/AIABEWyAgADS/oCABr6HAIAAA3cAgAAwV4D//7AJRA==
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 11:35:44 +0000
Message-ID: <13DE5431-7F6B-4699-A49D-3FC7DD5322BA@cisco.com>
References: <D3B60069.31262%volz@cisco.com> <43CE5CAD-2D98-4A75-BF33-E5B415B1013C@employees.org> <D3B605F6.31290%volz@cisco.com> <4FA70E3F-1AED-4662-AEA9-1BCA107F87AD@cooperw.in> <9fb468f9-7f8f-0c0f-ad3e-6d6ff31f3521@si6networks.com> <CAO42Z2z55B5WHR=Oaa=WF1tM4i4LFmFxWC5pe1opqQ46ZOWdtA@mail.gmail.com> <A3200A86-B59B-4AD4-9CF2-D2C7F50AE4C8@employees.org> <CAO42Z2yaLjBesCFRqYVZ10Vm0W+HMtNRXj+bPYqOQYm3zVqEmA@mail.gmail.com>, <CAO42Z2xc3p47qkqJWWrmswCoKFhiw94DqZq-Gvi2sjTOvhvMKg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2xc3p47qkqJWWrmswCoKFhiw94DqZq-Gvi2sjTOvhvMKg@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/3hlN974Tee-doNhQqon9YX3hf_s>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>, "dhcpv6bis@ietf.org" <dhcpv6bis@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-6man-default-iids@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-6man-default-iids@ietf.org>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-6man-default-iids Section 4 & 6.9 (DHCPv6)
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 11:35:47 -0000

For DHCPv6 we already have information about this in https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7824#section-4.3. And we have an open ticket to modify text in the 3315bis document -- https://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/166.

- Bernie (from iPad)

>> On Aug 10, 2016, at 7:22 AM, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 10 August 2016 at 18:28, Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 10 August 2016 at 18:16,  <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
>>> Mark,
>>> 
>>> [...]
>>> 
>>>> I argued for that because I think privacy is a primary property of an address, not the method used to configure it. However, since the different methods of configuring the address can effect the resulting address's privacy properties, I think it is necessary to discuss how to achieve privacy for the three different configuration methods we have in the one place.
>>> 
>>> And you don't think RFC7721 is enough?
>> 
>> Yes, got this draft and that RFC mixed up! I think I missed that RFC
>> getting published, which is why I thought that sort of text was in a
>> draft somewhere.
> 
> Actually I'll take that back. RFC7721 is analysis of the issues.
> 
> draft-ietf-6man-default-iids is really about SLAAC and DHCPv6 as they
> computer generate IIDs.
> 
> My suggestion to also include static IIDs was more as a related side
> note (not sure if there is anyway to indicate that in an RFC), as I
> think having a bit of advice on static IIDs somewhere would be useful
> (a separate RFC might be a bit excessive). The title is general enough
> that I think static IIDs advice can be included, and it then makes
> this ID cover all current methods of configuring addresses.
> 
> Regards,
> Mark.
> 
> 
>> Apologies for the noise!
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Mark.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>> Ole

v2.31.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status