IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

otroan@employees.org Wed, 10 August 2016 08:16 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 A924D12D12F; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 01:16:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.336
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.336 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=employees.org; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=otroan@employees.org header.d=employees.org
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 WmwZTcMbO4mS; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 01:16:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from incoming.kjsl.com (inbound02.kjsl.com [IPv6:2001:1868:2002::144]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 91E4912D123; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 01:16:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org ([IPv6:2001:1868:a000:17::142]) by ironport02.kjsl.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 10 Aug 2016 08:16:36 +0000
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA2BE9CC51; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 01:16:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id :references:to; s=selector1; bh=32g7AfmxmYtgsXmBo7D3yVbjY8M=; b= ifDW+G/Q2mrIWv6Vd4Lv9qVZPqYL5eDGORReWV1dcy9irq6QEtil9d9w0UAKx/wT eMO5Vn30Sg5otUhRKxbI2mAFeRigWldMbjiVZWDMPCrLcQVk/1xwO6Fx5if4BpmK VNmF2yASfYz9emobEqVb2qdcWPeRs4n8uuiYN77Ytqs=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h=subject :mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id :references:to; q=dns; s=selector1; b=b77E5eW7OVR+YLT4+iqPom4m4P 5Ib5e7JJRgEStwty/CZ4kPe1arSx4UyY7Crk+0HycpokfpKrkjBnBXrLve8xCbpM EgrdasxnFooL2HEGC326YPdUNW8Bk9fXIQ9c2gqlJ047s3Mqcsud+V9QAA6sunXB n1x26AFFI+awTjwEw=
Received: from h.hanazo.no (unknown [173.38.220.36]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8F2E89CC4F; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 01:16:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 31376311D184; Wed, 10 Aug 2016 10:16:33 +0200 (CEST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_52604314-412F-43C1-BC26-C3093EF2C3E5"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg="pgp-sha512"
X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail
From: otroan@employees.org
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2z55B5WHR=Oaa=WF1tM4i4LFmFxWC5pe1opqQ46ZOWdtA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2016 10:16:32 +0200
Message-Id: <A3200A86-B59B-4AD4-9CF2-D2C7F50AE4C8@employees.org>
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>
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/AB_hKXHUyCAJUlzxVX4Tid4tRkA>
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>, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
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 08:16:42 -0000

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?

Cheers,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email