Re: [dhcwg] IETF-93 Follow Up - draft-ietf-dhc-stable-privacy-addresses (Respond by Aug 11, 2015)

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Fri, 31 July 2015 15:12 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B14401A1BB1 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 08:12:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 ZQFYOPWutEic for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 08:12:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ig0-x230.google.com (mail-ig0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::230]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 203A51A1B0D for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 08:12:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by igr7 with SMTP id 7so18322894igr.0 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 08:12:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=oRq/fl4Gb/trFMIMqCod0INk4mYRzH5a7vzPhDqjAsA=; b=czjj4QxLxMCJcq3X0ge/58E3kq33OMqSZ52M0siyWmLGy6fEK8otOifXEQ842ju2J6 ojS0I2zu40SlzVbD6dcAbFs7hV5xstzKsg5aiDwfYzhlkpG6y1p/llnMaVz22tWJy65z R6CHPD94ho0Xe1oRXbKAVWhzqhp/ib8bPKiFh3CwT99kqbguUaPP3QqA2U7I25hJEVIs L4Thu6HB6wLD9DiorS4nmJTIUff1SK+QeujiVslsjsW1vtZMGBX5UG5mfn4qYBaSmuvc VNrS+CxV5coWJe9ZDoMvAKc9atz53sBhaif74GV8Gk5vhQ01IuWs6FA0MLDMrQp+WXC9 nG/Q==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.117.98 with SMTP id kd2mr6517322igb.78.1438355537600; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 08:12:17 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com
Received: by 10.107.19.139 with HTTP; Fri, 31 Jul 2015 08:12:17 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55BB7FF9.1060600@si6networks.com>
References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1CB90384@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <55BB7FF9.1060600@si6networks.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 08:12:17 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 7I_GO3jTrmvw-E4kd4KFsbrXYaY
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqfBhcsPrS5ZJyzeHY1-XeBFfbzCLYWnJgO4ZNwQFikMaQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/BgTcbdMdj3MRRTC2hOJuXmr9f-M>
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] IETF-93 Follow Up - draft-ietf-dhc-stable-privacy-addresses (Respond by Aug 11, 2015)
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 15:12:19 -0000

At Fri, 31 Jul 2015 16:02:33 +0200,
Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:

> FWIW, this document became a wg item a while ago. Then eventually:
>
> * Lorenzo raised concerns about technical aspects of the document (which
> were addressed and/or clarified)
>
> * A few folks noted their skepticism regarding the value of this
> document. I've noted a few times that the value is:
>
>     1) It is a calculated technique for DHCPv6 failover (as pointed
>        in RFC7031, but never specified elsewhere).
>
>     2) Also useful in the case of CPEs that cannot maintain a lease
>        database.
>
>     3) At the same time, it specifies an algorithm for randomizing
>        the IIDs.
[...]
> And I haven't seen anyone contending these points (other than making
> rather vague comments regarding the value that this document may bring).

FWIW, I provided a feedback on a previous call regarding the next
step of this draft several months ago:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/PfFh1IsHvWa_0sEZsBpvrs6Qnjs

In short, I did see some value in the proposal, but didn't see it very
strong.  So I had no problem with dropping it while I wouldn't be
opposed to it publishing either if others wanted so.  As far as I
notice there's been nothing that can change my position.  That's why
I didn't explicitly respond to the call this time.

> * Besides, having this document been adopted as a wg item last year, I'd
> say that the onus of providing reasons regarding what to do with this
> document should be on the folks arguing to drop it, rather than on folks
> that may want to keep this document alive.

Personally, I don't buy this argument as a general procedural matter.
If a wg adoption meant such a strong obligation for wg members I'd
rather raise the bar for the adoption in the first place.  My general
understanding is that it's actually author's (or other supporters, if
any) responsibility to keep the wg interested; if the author fails in
it, the wg is always free to drop the proposal (and IMO that's a good
balance to not raise the bar for adoption too high).

--
JINMEI, Tatuya