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

["Stephen Farrell" <[e-mail]>]

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.