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

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 02/22/2016 08:51 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 7:18 AM, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     >    When these options enable stateless address configuration (i.e., when
>     >    the A flag in a Prefix Information Option is set to 1) hosts using the
>     >    anonymity profile SHOULD perform stateless address configuration
>     >    and SHOULD NOT use stateful DHCPv6, because stateless configuration
>     >
>     > I don't see how that text is different from the text that's already in
>     > the draft, except it actually provides clear guidance. Why not use it?
> 
>     The above text (or any similar text already in the I-D) suggests that
>     this document should be updating RFC4862. Because it is not only
>     specifying that to do when you do DHCPv6, but also whether to do
>     SLAAC/DHCPv6 in the fist place.
> 
> 
> I don't see why. I don't recall a statement in RFC 4862 specifying
> whether hosts should use one or the other.

But the authors are making such statement here. i.e., if you are going
to implement SLAAC/DHCPv6, then this statement affects your
implementation. Hence, an appropriate tag should be included (i.e., such
that if I look at RFC4862 or RFC3315, it's clear that I should look at
this document, too).

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492