Re: [dhcwg] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-05: (with COMMENT)

tianxiang li <> Wed, 15 February 2017 03:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98BFF12949E; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 19:37:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.748
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ri6H_Q8f_Q9x; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 19:37:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23A5112946C; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 19:37:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id 65so108616990otq.2; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 19:37:34 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=FJzmW/Z1Jn6i46XqHa40w8iZw0QednhTY81kzKr4Ic8=; b=PzfPA+vixIgH1JchL6WlvLBByLhQgmzGQJETpn/scqep1a9DCi78mF+hfiiQ8uhetx WppMWpNbWBoQ25kDM+ccEIv2XBZqPfLnP/Vfg7XJ60KJAPKAiRzpNyUBQh1Kgyx97cpf dC7QOILJBKrwrpS/cxE/Qe5mgwbFGXRfN8oUH5X3eyVcKTe+hRRcHUB5ZUHOb4XtyolG +MXFkHjot8y9Wzi7ZKaW7OEvrie2SDMZ6hO/0eZ2wMkM+5mSjnRgbIURTDdVpjZmtQC+ 4SfReniRqa14P6tBEM/Ogr1b3uJRUdFqktNAy0HxTZfJBJA4sxBCg9961Y+EuBNQ8Zg8 iTEA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=FJzmW/Z1Jn6i46XqHa40w8iZw0QednhTY81kzKr4Ic8=; b=AgTkvrAdmLLMV0iRR6fwWtcJheyitgk1KEfg8OSo3xo6JHVg7XejSw7oW2S4YtUz/c FyqpYb1WALvaxbUdZ3XKrn2Odd1OiBY15sa9tDe6pZapIjMFHA1kKi2yVfYSghqrhM6e hg0Ws5RwKCOHdZSAcMjuTci/vDbBjPiIg/qfYdF9UYluezBzpAO+h5JeOT+yJANdImyp zbStewL7WfYGGAvlQKNjCuYCdNTGgY0KW0TqY4dGfoBidHSff1nlT20zStNJ6R55qiTx HqOeMLNgSybDdy4Q+97TUovmtD9SK3yQTCY7QUZPzMN+Po1r9OwRvqJsgKjmgbsdLER9 EK1w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39k6bxyexccHKW1OVfC8G5I5uT1x8Dv68oZs7ex5hge2vmcMJ1tOPnDfsoSGYQYafPrZgx92s/YQig/I2w==
X-Received: by with SMTP id 50mr16906765ote.91.1487129853420; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 19:37:33 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 14 Feb 2017 19:36:53 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: tianxiang li <>
Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 11:36:53 +0800
Message-ID: <>
To: Kathleen Moriarty <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113f52d0a5ebfc05488966d5
Archived-At: <>
Cc:, Bernie Volz <>, The IESG <>, dhcwg <>,
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Kathleen Moriarty's No Objection on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-05: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 03:37:35 -0000

Hi Kathleen,

Thank you for the review, please see inline.


2017-02-15 6:18 GMT+08:00 Kathleen Moriarty <>gt;:

> Kathleen Moriarty has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-05: 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
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> prefix-length-hint-issue/
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> I'm okay with the reasoning for the security considerations section, but
> think it might be good if a general reference for security of DHCP was
> listed as well.  Since an older RFC is referenced, any references from
> that one might be out-of-date.

[Tianxiang] Thanks for pointing that out, we could add a sentence
referencing RFC 3315 for security considerations in DHCP. However, as I
understand both RFC 3633 and 3315 would be obsoleted
by draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis once it's approved, should we add reference to
3315bis instead? My current proposal is as follow:

This document introduces no new security considerations over those already
discussed in section 15 of RFC3633, as this document provides guidance on
how the clients and servers interact with regard to the prefix-length hint
mechanism introduced in RFC3633.

This document provides guidance on how the clients and servers interact
with regard to the DHCPv6 prefix-length hint mechanism. Security
considerations in DHCP are described in section 23 of RFC 3315. Security
considerations regarding DHCPv6 prefix delegation are described in section
15 of RFC 3633.