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

Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com> Wed, 29 July 2015 17:45 UTC

Return-Path: <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.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 192151B2BB5 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 10:45:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 tNKw4cBxgbmR for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 10:45:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x236.google.com (mail-lb0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::236]) (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 686DE1A906F for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 10:45:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by lbbud7 with SMTP id ud7so7939983lbb.3 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 10:45:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=CoKEa58/sKPR9InC2EOyBtPUMsKtDZNsSj4K5+O/edA=; b=h+T+SF3a8TF75NbzcMZctqR+09zkBPmHoxzhPUVZVJCkh6RPQxY2NP5qLCiV6uQk40 ieLXonEC1R3XP1wPJG51FjLnwR6ZodpejRubm4gn9+97kOR1NqdjavDmBwh7ZnGNE/j9 0RZjyNdzRO7avvh13SkS1AtTCvDOKwLp2BtG41POkdB8LKAqrcqBe7bop2GbyB5VUOS0 eexKo5edjDVaL9ZRHvNUrEHSN4NnP5QLKtEs1aUoZf9Esezoz+2oLrLya53ZLXdUNLoI eRORSjCFMx5nQE/Ad8Kbv7VRufFMiQvhQZU6B8SR0/Qli1EpXVBhtXWG2U8YGVgPd51G /iBA==
X-Received: by 10.152.37.196 with SMTP id a4mr40650057lak.59.1438191913935; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 10:45:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from voyager2.local (109107011157.gdansk.vectranet.pl. [109.107.11.157]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id wg9sm1672581lbb.6.2015.07.29.10.45.12 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 29 Jul 2015 10:45:12 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <55B91127.9020403@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 19:45:11 +0200
From: Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1CB90384@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1CB90384@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/U1T77_xagStBpFoMyQJ3CJb2BhU>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] IETF-93 Follow Up - draft-ietf-dhc-stable-privacy-addresses (Respond by Aug 11, 2015)
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: <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: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 17:45:17 -0000

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