Re: [dhcwg] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-active-leasequery-03: (with COMMENT)

[Kim Kinnear <[e-mail]>]

Ben,

Thanks for your review.  

Comments on your comments are inline, below:

On Jul 7, 2015, at 7:00 PM, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-active-leasequery-03: No Objection
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> 
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-active-leasequery/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> -- general:
> I understand this to be a way for a third party to "actively" monitor
> client DHCPv6 bindings.  Does that warrant some privacy considerations?

	Typically this isn't a "third party", but rather another
	element of a service providers OSS ensemble.  We expect that
	TLS certificates will allow the server to ensure that it is
	only talking to requestors with which it is configured to
	exchange information.  Additionally, in response to Stephen
	Farrell's review, we will be adding text to indicate that an
	administrator SHOULD be able to configure which data elements
	can be returned to a requestor.   So, yes, we have multiple
	levels of controls that can be used to limit the allowed
	requestors and the data exchanged with an allowed requestor.

> -- section 8.2:
> The selection of secure vs insecure mode MAY be administratively
> selectable. It seems like there should a stronger requirement for an
> administrative option to force secure mode.


	Good idea, we will say that it SHOULD be administratively
	selectable.

	Regards -- Kim