IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] preliminary comments on draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-17

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Fri, 02 December 2016 13:56 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 00A5E1296BB for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 05:56:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.601
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.601 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 OfMb4U8bCPt9 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 05:56:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf0-x235.google.com (mail-lf0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::235]) (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 14EC91294D2 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 05:56:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf0-x235.google.com with SMTP id c13so195551160lfg.0 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 05:56:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=vnCvX7hJ42WxYuwVkbK8F/zLolhmzcC5tR0KsCCWUrg=; b=FKaXIwgrX3u2DEQ+At4DWj+gmOKHXIF0In5ih/79K0ujvjD0tuFCrABKoSQicxDVKf KyOIr1D7PkVqjOIxG8idzqw6M3PKgzx3RgPRxcWAQx9bnY3cD1k9tWDiYeRGtTEoddlz rk9uIYyA+MuVeMoNq7jrVe1RtZ0an7C59PtYtxkFqcqZBMMkdJRzjgULPDLhmdqsm1mS 0TE843QWOGwe/jEuox2+tVEVfTYydmqiYBna2P25ljl3pH3ItAcP/OKHk/mnpuG63rcT 01cjGWZa7tT0hFrAWaJ6VLjIJFF002Fv2TVlyo/O7e5by9A6VR4pSLFJQMgv6MO3l6kK 8YsA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=vnCvX7hJ42WxYuwVkbK8F/zLolhmzcC5tR0KsCCWUrg=; b=BVERw6SgsEPZyU06LiIN3mcf016xGSlS1u6QiHJO+jtGpOmhj2LHfZJ3pycPOpMEo5 7HboDAoZegpMNgMPJETlG0W3Y+zoQ+siYEeKeco5O00tvAjn+/+wompVLKvSOJfXy1v0 PsRdOwznsJzuz37J+achwUDfCyWFg7x2SHs0lZdwjsev5+LSzL44TBH7O+7xWhKJNKMB c0lX5fnMgTOuPTvGm42ktn8JLuN7Lrmrbrww+agVn9/fNGZvh72vo7yUkvgBJjp5BhEw /k8R4WoWeGzkWMa3NgjKvc8Aj8K8rSrraIHZKlbM8gBYqUVtGKxa+srU0hoQKFI98tLN 2iRA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC00zk2fPVT8ZznfkHnx3coQSU8op8nYehthVmfdX86nGAJizrH6SNEGA/2hctrlDxXXGUT4CHqIvKiPrVA==
X-Received: by 10.46.5.15 with SMTP id 15mr22584477ljf.64.1480686989206; Fri, 02 Dec 2016 05:56:29 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.25.63.132 with HTTP; Fri, 2 Dec 2016 05:55:48 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAJ3w4Ne7BHLVuoo86kiKLRxre6VtoQ6HSAa3O+CbE4B30V3hAA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJE_bqebwr2WUUgaNgiYS4_8L77Gxj4Os+oPRG407B6ELMEhCQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ3w4Ndi5Gq63n5kZnanRhLM8nWE2wsWGh0kJJLJnq=VoXLuCg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqegh1DfWjfK2BxeC_fWa0cEk-KJNP0AT-TQuEa39w_wVQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ3w4NdM99nv4C19Xj=aosNme+_Ymyys=xQ3UWUfeZReZC4ckA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqdhGZnK16MooiyujDgthDNnR74EiwW0OevrN6uq4b4ANw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqfKUZe2yaW1sAq7rrib0M7wz28HHtPLqCHK=vXcN6amgg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ3w4Nd3s+ZojjiotLkKwys6truhUgK6F-90UYjcpB9iw=fKKQ@mail.gmail.com> <m2r36nuqvn.wl%jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com> <CAJ3w4NeuNYTrX4p5rtZ6UceD5ydQ-B-vY6aqQzxWnXsrDOEFEA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqdh-bgk7BHZJnaFFBr3PDj4ZnSSGeGNdQ70F7dv91iQrA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ3w4NfU9PrC9a+MGnJ=Es1yir_asHB3p1=9GfxZZ0iSe+At+Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqfRBYkrniWQ+vtPULTURnvyV792QNGvr8JhhZpGQ0MSdA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ3w4NerRzHYsRqcUAkAjHX23PYVF4Jv0wKcd33vXRRg+-0EAQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ3w4NekPk0TuAZW_jmTDYQHd8JP3GsrA0qrKYrnyqSSk3qwxw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqc8hkrc3dYefTPWi-mUCtZD+oYsrobCK1KjmVGRnNfMCw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ3w4NejrFAT3RK7i0W46HkQNJjhPxbhzQiL=3fcrceidTzHNQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqcCwZWPHuZ0UR8_jyCUsaTrYKzLD8zUKwChYaCL06yT9A@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ3w4NfS8PKOMHcP5s_Nsp5K5eWJfXWRF-vNEau_ekqTRwE=wA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqfqSXFR9R5wf1USg-zs+nvdohQFq99kQL2DiapXvUdEqA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ3w4Ncj40JwrW6UB+TVFvymByU5Y9iFv5QroWhwUzkLrS2DTg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqd38grUh9q57a-H29GsMx5Dpv9VE0iBMO7v_-y97zZZUg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ3w4Ne63cnqoeTZk=PDmAN9+i6jwzyxbK+up45wB9h+xUDSfw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqceK7YLpMqhgjqrFQh7641a+ZRcnO0F6p6BiM8EMKmA7w@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ3w4Nf65b1zo-smMguZBc_-RbFh2y8kk7Fnu__TKCQEVbs48w@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqeVciLxS_q=deRKLBr12ZGXxx2wdFiztJxJjfS7aAV2Ag@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ3w4NcvyeuRWJatGGH7U4g413GQvr9LHtDiX13zSOz7kBGEhw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqfFOhe26huAP8_BFKjnTXbG4F0vUfMYs5Xy=3RQigS7FA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ3w4Ne81LVsaznu_yck7fG7iJyGm=WY4=i2AF8gx39Tf59eMA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqceRD2+vkfwR+Egr=CgyAT4wd1Wmxp1S=f3WRFGs9j4sg@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ3w4NcnAe3Enhs6KVgBkpa+BivLGRw9SGJ1RmAq7q=HM8Ph6Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqcTpK0j_yfza3KPavEgdcpk2z+ZivZt8Hs1m2NrE7_scA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ3w4NfEqpZu+fYO_1A06bVT2Qzqc1qyTi_NkKrBjWGCJGwJVA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqeXr02-9f5MrntfhmgQfNF=F9h+A62TBR-C4tAxcRDx-g@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ3w4NfoebD1PnE82AwVz0s5s7y5pCoaX3ATJWtAa37aOej9hw@mail.gmail.com> <CAJE_bqeBawJ4c36y19zNZuCX--WK0A8mjhqviwHesawpXqr_tA@mail.gmail.com> <CAJ3w4Ne7BHLVuoo86kiKLRxre6VtoQ6HSAa3O+CbE4B30V3hAA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 08:55:48 -0500
Message-ID: <CAPt1N1nU=jQBh+9BOU3jcugYaeCwmh2r9a1YNdBX_7aBJRGDQQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lishan Li <lilishan48@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/DLadwB-i8Q9uhmYjJ6Ael3tpJDE>
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] preliminary comments on draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-17
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: Fri, 02 Dec 2016 13:56:34 -0000

Can I ask, where are you guys on this?   There's been so much
discussion that I've lost the thread.   Is anybody producing a summary
of issues?

On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 1:34 AM, Lishan Li <lilishan48@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2016-12-02 3:44 GMT+08:00 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>:
>>
>> At Thu, 1 Dec 2016 19:46:06 +0800,
>> Lishan Li <lilishan48@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > This didn't answer my question.  Could you first answer the question?
>> > > If there's no such restriction in the base protocol, we cannot assume
>> > > it and can't assume it in designing sedhcpv6.
>> > >
>> > [LS]: I just think that it is a default fact. Could you please give an
>> > example that the client communicates with two DHCPv6 servers
>> > for the address configuration in the same time?
>>
>> I don't have an example; I already noted it would be unlikely in
>> practice.  My point is that unless the restriction is specified in the
>> protocol we can't design a new protocol implicitly assuming that
>> restriction.  Otherwise someone may deploy the service with violating
>> the assumption, and we cannot blame them as it's invalid.  We should
>> either:
>> 1. design the protocol (=sedhcpv6) so it can work without the
>>   assumption, or
>> 2. explicitly state it's a restriction that this protocol assumes
>>
>> BTW, on thinking about the reconfigure case more, I realized that
>> including a key tag option for the client public key in the Encrypted
>> Reply is probably a bad idea, as it could be used for client-tracking.
>> So, in the end, option #2 above may be the least bad option anyway.
>> The assumed restriction wouldn't be that restrictive in practice, and
>> the client can still try all possible key pairs (if it uses multiple
>> pairs) in the rare corner cases.
>
> [LS]: Agree. Then in this version, we adds the assumption description
> clearly.
>
> Best Regards,
> Lishan
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email