IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Thu, 28 May 2015 14:07 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 434091ACD2B; Thu, 28 May 2015 07:07:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.91
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.91 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 fn0nHTMjtib3; Thu, 28 May 2015 07:06:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com [64.89.234.25]) (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 550601ACD48; Thu, 28 May 2015 07:06:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-04.win.nominum.com [64.89.235.67]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certificate Authority - G2" (verified OK)) by sjc1-mx02-inside.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33D66DA0085; Thu, 28 May 2015 14:06:45 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [10.0.20.133] (71.233.43.215) by CAS-04.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.224.2; Thu, 28 May 2015 07:06:44 -0700
References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1CAF5DA3@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <55670179.8030400@cs.tcd.ie> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1CAF5EC1@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <20150528.141105.74661164.sthaug@nethelp.no>
MIME-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <20150528.141105.74661164.sthaug@nethelp.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <A3AEB09B-EB90-4BF2-8925-560A6B30C8E8@nominum.com>
X-Mailer: iPad Mail (12F69)
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 10:06:42 -0400
To: "<sthaug@nethelp.no>" <sthaug@nethelp.no>
X-Originating-IP: [71.233.43.215]
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/FExBG87qmge5U7W9b9xxQauK_m4>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 28 May 2015 07:12:55 -0700
Cc: "<draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation.ad@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation.ad@ietf.org>, "<volz@cisco.com>" <volz@cisco.com>, "<dhc-chairs@ietf.org>" <dhc-chairs@ietf.org>, "<draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation@ietf.org>, "<Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>" <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>, "<dhcwg@ietf.org>" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "<draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation.shepherd@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation.shepherd@ietf.org>, "<stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, "<iesg@ietf.org>" <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 28 May 2015 14:07:02 -0000

On May 28, 2015, at 8:11 AM, <sthaug@nethelp.no> <sthaug@nethelp.no> wrote:
> Do we have reason to believe that the Windows behavior would be changed
> given a MUST in this document?

We can speculate, based on the fact that one of the leading proponents of the DHCP privacy specification is a Microsoft employee, that this could happen for future versions of Microsoft's products.   I think it's unlikely that the fix will be retroactive.   But what do I know?   Speculation is somewhat silly, and also immaterial, since in this case the MAC address can't be used as an identifier, and Windows isn't really the target for this work—we are likely to see most implementations in home router firmware.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email