IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-jiang-dhc-dhcp-privacy & draft-krishnan-dhc-dhcpv6-privacy

"Linhui Sun" <sunlinhui@bupt.edu.cn> Fri, 23 January 2015 05:23 UTC

Return-Path: <sunlinhui@bupt.edu.cn>
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 52C3A1A0242 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 21:23:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.791
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.791 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_FONT_LOW_CONTRAST=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, 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 4dLuuBmRb1zp for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 21:23:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx2.bupt.edu.cn (mx2.bupt.edu.cn [211.68.68.3]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFB141A01C6 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Jan 2015 21:23:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from SDWM-20131107EC (unknown [106.185.25.254]) by mx2.bupt.edu.cn (AnyMacro(G7)) with ESMTPA id BED5F19F35F; Fri, 23 Jan 2015 13:23:15 +0800 (HKT)
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 13:24:32 +0800
From: Linhui Sun <sunlinhui@bupt.edu.cn>
To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1B7BE04B@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
X-Priority: 3
X-GUID: 9C6619D2-2AB6-4800-B38B-1C9779116874
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7, 2, 6, 37[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <2015012313243075540868@bupt.edu.cn>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart086162734686_=----"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/PMe6YAqrGF1fFMw9vD8B8bwj2sE>
Cc: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-jiang-dhc-dhcp-privacy & draft-krishnan-dhc-dhcpv6-privacy
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: Fri, 23 Jan 2015 05:23:24 -0000

Hi, all

I do support the two documents to be adopted as WG items. While I got a minor confusion about section 3.5 in [draft-krishnan-dhc-dhcpv6-privacy-00]. And I also believe this minor issue can be solved after it becomes the WG item. 

3.5.  Subscriber ID @ [draft-krishnan-dhc-dhcpv6-privacy-00]
   A DHCPv6 relay includes a Subscriber ID option [RFC4580] to associate
   some provider-specific information with clients' DHCPv6 messages that
   is independent of the physical network configuration.
   In many deployments, the relay agent that inserts this option is
   configured to use client's link-layer address as Subscriber ID.

As defiend in RFC4580 (also described in this document), the Subscriber ID is expected to provide provider-specific information and be independent of the physical network configuration.  However, the Subscriber ID often uses client's link-layer address in practice as described in the second paragraph. There seems to be a conflict between the original design motivation and the actual deployment, since the client's link-layer address seems not to be provider-specifc and is relevant to physical network configuration.

Best Regards,
Linhui


sunlinhui@bupt.edu.cn
 
From: Bernie Volz (volz)
Date: 2015-01-23 02:37
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-jiang-dhc-dhcp-privacy & draft-krishnan-dhc-dhcpv6-privacy
Hello:
 
During the Honolulu IETF-91 meeting, there was consensus to adopt the following documents as working group items:
draft-jiang-dhc-dhcp-privacy-00  Privacy considerations for DHCP
draft-krishnan-dhc-dhcpv6-privacy-00      Privacy considerations for DHCPv6
 
If you do NOT favor the adoption of one or both, please reply to this mail and also state your objections. This adoption call will end on Feb 4, 2015, and unless we hear objections, these documents will be adopted.
 
You may also indicate your support for adopting them, but because of the WG meeting consensus, this is not necessary.
 
The HTML version of the documents can be viewed at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-jiang-dhc-dhcp-privacy-00 and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-krishnan-dhc-dhcpv6-privacy-00.
 
Thanks!
 
- Tomek & Bernie

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email