Re: [dhcwg] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-yang-24: (with COMMENT)

ianfarrer@gmx.com Mon, 24 January 2022 14:29 UTC

Return-Path: <ianfarrer@gmx.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 3109B3A0ACC; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 06:29:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.898
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gmx.net
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 LfLcn3cICOji; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 06:29:51 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.17.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 609983A0ACA; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 06:29:51 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1643034585; bh=/twAnVVodXNwvkNiNnd31UPiLynj6kMghYfaiUejV/Q=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=cqhN3Tt5lSGY85ifPnEOPVZNRUA06GSJsrm8R8t7SGodNO1o6fM3u1e+52y1Q/Udr gzGcRzV+TDsX0FcESu4AdottqFPS1GIkfwFcVFmW88B825anTy8xZ04aDlT3StAtlX TJy6iwn89gg6y5UR5d6PdId0VXfLHE4duoba4nnY=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([78.35.54.88]) by mail.gmx.net (mrgmx104 [212.227.17.174]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MkHQX-1mRuy02S1B-00kepK; Mon, 24 Jan 2022 15:29:45 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 15.0 \(3693.40.0.1.81\))
From: ianfarrer@gmx.com
In-Reply-To: <163962893754.31155.10776710383187465752@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2022 15:29:41 +0100
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, dhc-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-yang@ietf.org, dhcwg@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <674ED3ED-215B-4EEC-98FC-21B3C12F0820@gmx.com>
References: <163962893754.31155.10776710383187465752@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3693.40.0.1.81)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:t48WSXO0YmvPg8Lhez78dgm8jwFqGrdUucwDYtRtBrJLhHe9jqB 8PmQoFwfoGmvLS0nphHU1UuCX7Gi1pdx8s2J7Pece8PVjSdP7QuB8CYZHc9ikFbjIlkX194 lSTcUaqsVK39YvMlAzZwTFwD/3tS0GGsvKHYLkkTxMe5719ZjfY62W55wHaj4behhNImEtz nxe9eIlueArPl4wEMBM+w==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:ARTuPgEwBtw=:a9hivg9OuHYfA5zzVsBgJm f4rO8guKupqoMFdaavbDvIcbTVpbi7//d5ZAm2DTTslmpKkG+DCQY+4zUtvK8irrb0Q3UYRwL rSw7MuZJZapoGKjuBjsxBR17j5Y0K8OfKdxMN/L+s/td1eB97tDB7L6gyc2/VTuP07i5jnvhI nlh+aaMAxLiXFAx8KKLFdWyQbTcS79V0xRdlVHqSGsU5F2mTch76Ods7k6GZSx+lYeTQwF5Q7 rhmTWLLDWXXScM4aH6XcQFYMDi/LJxKdVrsMNmMxTUUHP9k99OGtcYIqgwehTey5QlOKKHu55 LJG716owCSnxKAfHMHWyXqYM/yRcAfSuKYDW1wd3M7l09+sW+ZsX9BqBNo98qrnmGAJUMQC1Y X6EJjlZkbcNjW9d6Ulone9TeoAjbV3Pib9mBHnbOFgUn6kfUfBce/BSaKjdmlHDDragPO+c1+ 7nHOnsXxTjLS5FXItlR9GorhzFQGcFJYyaOdkzgMgb4WULecluU/KGIuTYw7n2dDZgHt8qLTT JD+6cOnh1guyAsmIAKmzCuGZKGgB1R3HzWCWVQ3RXPtql/mj4OzjT+1De/XlNId4WkgirYNG+ jS0HITXnfn7ydw0hEDPr9MlXOblyM17/dDRAjYZ4ylfr4jUNX7o35/PrFGlyYP+Q6KkbU9fQh AwbF9myFkKRwH33bdcqNs4Kjyl9JIHuAjTxPSewTe7OP77YImhEsCnMk74oXV9bBk1UUaMphG Bwcj1mKiVDT4qGPZnBaHVhZy85lfkUKKp18xjvatY6UKTOFZGiLeWFBwiJLE1g6K8ByYb152C sNFj9USKFqwB0+qstzLvtm8vzU5wGi915ZYpg3OgvJjh3DrWPG//3VFgGn+RUYUWZhsDKD+XK DOWpmH6dF2SeEPlAuWRESreqSjVwffLFkiS5Q4SCuZH/HxS2qH92y4isF02dF7lkK3Y0Ehm+I +2PIEUtAM/nCFzkcWdmJWVyxpdQGIel9rQy44B3XAdjSCfRBgy2FgOFMha2sB83pUbu3moAhr G+gchpr8K1GqQNMkh+h2hab0pU3Xv5LMslBw5oLp/4UBLXhxwUG6HWGgJFIdPLoJQjnE5IgDH c5KzG5/YvRrX6k=
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/7oAKh9fYN7A-hbDuOj7dGeeCn8s>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Erik Kline's No Objection on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-yang-24: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Dynamic Host Configuration <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: Mon, 24 Jan 2022 14:29:54 -0000

Hi Erik,

First of all, many thanks for your review and my apologies that it’s taken so long for me to
reply.

Please see inline below.

@Bernie/@Tim, please can you give me your view on the anonymity profile suggestion below.

Thanks,
Ian

> On 16. Dec 2021, at 05:28, Erik Kline via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-yang-24: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-yang/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> [S1.2; nit]
> 
> * s/demonstrate how this is can be/demonstrate how this can be/

[if - done]

> 
> [S3.1; nit]

> 
> * s/for an failure/for a failure/

[if - done]

> 
> [S3.2, S4.3]
> 
> * Should RFC 4649 remote-id be included here?  Or, perhaps, did RFC 8415
>  S21.18 OPTION_INTERFACE_ID effectively obsolete OPTION_REMOTE_ID use
>  cases (or perhaps I'm just confused)?

[if - Both OPTION_REMOTE_IS and OPTION_INTERFACE_ID are still current
Options (and about 50/50 available in commercial implementations IME). 
But we restricted the scope of the doc to only contain options defined in RFC8415,
So RFC4649 options will be in a future doc.]

> 
> [S3.3, 4.4; question]
> 
> * For the user class and vendor class options, should they be annotated as
>  "not anon-profile"?  I'm curious about these elements w.r.t. to
>  RFC7844 S4.8.

[if - Good point, but it’s a SHOULD NOT rather than a MUST NOT requirement in
RFC7844, so I don’t think the YANG module should prevent it’s configuration.

@Bernie/Tim, do you have a view on this?

Suggest adding the following text to the descriptions for user/vendor class options: 

Please note that if the DHCPv6 anonymity profile is in use, then this option 
Should not be included.

And adding a ref to RFC 7844 sec 4.8.]

> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg