IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-privacy-01 - Respond by Sept. 22, 2015

Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com> Thu, 17 December 2015 21:15 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 D85F91B30C1 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 13:15:08 -0800 (PST)
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 eqqO9f1Ti39c for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 13:15:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22c.google.com (mail-wm0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22c]) (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 523501B30C0 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 13:15:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wm0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id p187so39159203wmp.0 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 13:15:05 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=13HBhShw7ve2ZYTAJJ0GuWS+rsc4TYKkufwHk1LaO+E=; b=zdmx0o2vs9NCKKhWtk/odTjN1qu2Ljb2LwekjvzYo5hmTFP7GZgDMNoWO9CcpRuluR GVjW8QbtNiUJ08XLjrFEjP1ylGB6ckC6w5Fzz+m0oBddzL1lhBi+PfR0kauvrw2Tyjyi 7wKwgG5d+jzi0urLmZoYZPAW268W1MSlz6WdGR/iaNmFwmIToFeMYLOlSo9luPuNFKI/ VK/OXGfmQuSv91WiQGr+qT1NzhCtUJqtR/SUYAzKQIVLKJKnzeiU4hKXKbCiyWM+zu44 0DiRlLV7RPDeBscAvuiXbVw7272eS7FJmBWUULDfm/yU8+T6hzEBEiob+9Aviju/mRdB FXsg==
X-Received: by 10.194.240.194 with SMTP id wc2mr59303294wjc.27.1450386903958; Thu, 17 Dec 2015 13:15:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.0.100] (109107011157.gdansk.vectranet.pl. [109.107.11.157]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id r74sm3947693wmb.2.2015.12.17.13.15.02 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 17 Dec 2015 13:15:03 -0800 (PST)
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1CC66123@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <CAJE_bqfV1DPm7XtbTJqKXRGXc_e9bDCuwzmMJ6p5xOnLUARDUA@mail.gmail.com> <5655D0FD.7040207@gmail.com> <61a2820f70944335af8b4939c1eba4bb@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com>
From: Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <567325D5.5000406@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 22:15:01 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <61a2820f70944335af8b4939c1eba4bb@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/Vn90lAp4BhwtP5ic5CSIOs1_5uI>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-privacy-01 - Respond by Sept. 22, 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: Thu, 17 Dec 2015 21:15:09 -0000

On 30.11.2015 20:36, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
> I think the 4.1 section could perhaps be re-written to say:
> 
> Client implementations may mistakenly renew temporary addresses if
> they are not careful (i.e., by including the IA_TA with the same
> IAID in Renew or Rebind requests, rather than a new IAID - see
> [RFC3315] Section 22.5), thus forfeiting short liveness.
> 
> And, [RFC4704] does not explicitly prohibit servers to update DNS
> for assigned temporary addresses.  However, this is not advised as 
> publishing a client's IPv6 address in DNS that is publicly available
> is a major privacy breach.
Thanks. Updated as suggested.

> For what it is worth, the server I work on has never done DNS Updates
> for temporary addresses - just for non-temporary if so configured.
For what it is worth, I saw this behavior many years ago, so hopefully
it's now corrected.

Tomek

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email