Re: [dhcwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile-06.txt> (Anonymity profile for DHCP clients) to Proposed Standard

["Christian Huitema" <[e-mail]>]

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