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

Hi chairs and all,

I would like the wg to continue working in this I-D. 

The mechanism proposed by this draft is useful and practical to prevent many of the associated issues with predictable addresses, and it is useful to have an RFC that we can refer to for dhcpv6 coders, and especially for the scenario where CPEs lack of the capability of maintaining database. 

Regards,
Will 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcwg [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tomek Mrugalski
> Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2015 1:45 AM
> To: Bernie Volz (volz); dhcwg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] IETF-93 Follow Up -
> draft-ietf-dhc-stable-privacy-addresses (Respond by Aug 11, 2015)
> 
> On 29/07/15 19:25, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
> > At the DHC WG session at IETF-93 (Prague), we had a discussion about
> > next steps for draft-ietf-dhc-stable-privacy-addresses. In particular,
> > I (Bernie Volz) proposed we consider it a "dead WG" document (or
> > possibly continue it as Informational). The consensus (hum) in the
> > room was as
> > follows:
> >
> > - Most felt (loudest hum) we should consider it a "dead WG" document.
> >
> > - A few (minor hum) were in favor of continuing work on it as an
> > Information draft.
> >
> > - None (silent) were in favor of continuing work as is (standards
> > track).
> As a co-chair I confirm that it was my perception as well. The hum indicated
> that people in the room strongly favored marking the doc as dead WG
> document.
> 
> With my co-chair hat off, I think this draft could have been useful couple years
> ago. It defines an allocation strategy that could be beneficial in certain cases.
> Some modern DHCP servers allow multiple allocation strategies and this could
> have been one of them. The text suggested that the algorithm specified is the
> only right way to do it.
> It is not.
> 
> But my strongest objection to it is that privacy and stable do not mix well. The
> general consensus seems be that changing MAC addresses and all associated
> identifiers over time is the way to go. That's what the anonymity profile and
> other associated work in other WGs is proposing.
> Had we published this draft, it would be confusing for vendors what the
> recommendation for privacy is: randomize MAC addresses or go with stable
> privacy addresses. Based on that I'm in favor of dropping this work.
> 
> Tomek
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg