Re: [dhcwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile-06.txt> (Anonymity profile for DHCP clients) to Proposed Standard

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

On 02/22/2016 09:35 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Fernando Gont <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     >     The above text (or any similar text already in the I-D) suggests that
>     >     this document should be updating RFC4862. Because it is not only
>     >     specifying that to do when you do DHCPv6, but also whether to do
>     >     SLAAC/DHCPv6 in the fist place.
>     >
>     >
>     > I don't see why. I don't recall a statement in RFC 4862 specifying
>     > whether hosts should use one or the other.
> 
>     But the authors are making such statement here. i.e., if you are going
>     to implement SLAAC/DHCPv6, then this statement affects your
>     implementation. Hence, an appropriate tag should be included (i.e., such
>     that if I look at RFC4862 or RFC3315, it's clear that I should look at
>     this document, too).
> 
> 
> I still don't see why this document needs to formally "updates: RFC
> 4862" if it doesn't affect any text in it.

RFC4861/RFC4862 say that when M=1 you do SLAAC. Here you are saying that
if you have a PIO with A=1, you should not do DHCPv6. That's an update
to the existing specs.

I'm not saying the above is good or bad, but that's an update, and
deserves a corresponding "update tag".

-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492