Re: [dhcwg] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-active-leasequery-03: (with COMMENT)

["Ben Campbell" <[e-mail]>]

On 9 Jul 2015, at 15:49, Kim Kinnear wrote:

>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> COMMENT:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> -- general:
>> I understand this to be a way for a third party to "actively" monitor
>> client DHCPv6 bindings.  Does that warrant some privacy 
>> considerations?
>
> 	Typically this isn't a "third party", but rather another
> 	element of a service providers OSS ensemble.  We expect that
> 	TLS certificates will allow the server to ensure that it is
> 	only talking to requestors with which it is configured to
> 	exchange information.  Additionally, in response to Stephen
> 	Farrell's review, we will be adding text to indicate that an
> 	administrator SHOULD be able to configure which data elements
> 	can be returned to a requestor.   So, yes, we have multiple
> 	levels of controls that can be used to limit the allowed
> 	requestors and the data exchanged with an allowed requestor.

The main point of my comment was that I think this draft needs privacy 
considerations. I see you've already agreed to add that in response to 
Stephen's DISCUSS position. If that addresses Stephen's concerns, it 
will almost certainly address mine, Therefore I will defer to the 
results of that conversation.

Thanks!

Ben.

[...]