Re: [dhcwg] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery-06: (with COMMENT)

[Kathleen Moriarty <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Stephen Farrell
<[e-mail]> wrote:
> Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery-06: 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-dhcpv4-active-leasequery/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> I think I recognise almost all of the security/privacy text we
> ended up with for the dhcpv6 equivalent - thanks for getting all
> that right!
>
> For Alissa and Ben - I'd be happier too if only secure mode
> existed here, but there was an argument (which I've forgotten)
> as to why we needed the insecure one - I think it boiled down to
> doing it on the same machine or that they'd do it no matter what
> the RFC says. (But I may be mis-remembering.) So while I agree
> with your points on that, I'm not sure we're (i.e. we as IESG)
> right to fight the battle again over this one when they're
> making this the same as the dhcpv6 one we already approved.
> Anyway, if you do fight the battle over and win, we should
> probably ensure any resulting edits also get done to the dhcpv6
> equivalent spec which is with the RFC editor still.

I had a similar thought when reading the draft, which is why I didn't
comment further, although did notice the insecure mode as a potential
issue.

>
>



-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen