Re: [dhcwg] 3315bis question: Changing default DUID to DUID-LL?

Erik Kline <ek@google.com> Tue, 24 May 2016 01:34 UTC

Return-Path: <ek@google.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EBE712D5E9 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 May 2016 18:34:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.427
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.427 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.426, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=google.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3sSVxkwwXPJE for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 May 2016 18:34:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x234.google.com (mail-it0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7122D12D524 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 May 2016 18:34:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x234.google.com with SMTP id e62so42321358ita.1 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 May 2016 18:34:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=rnFvRqkzdgxHVcMGlcZzhi6sxBFeluTv1ah/KRi2PQg=; b=LFAHxVlTa4rrbdGL7QylUBR/onV2JuBOtOyZwIWXMBFuQ0c3bIMaRLZGqKs1F4SPt+ hK64TcQnWowzjj6aBLGdpYFjV264rkvnccDcrX2FzgxYNhVsQPFIzT/s4gUOEE+5XFvf Toxnk8U4iW7Uo+r8Y+rNyljECYKLB4nVfBrV7t+FE7SmSxz2fQxsNrtqAWH3ar0W5aFA RngNyKZkY4b4CoS+pHHPShhd/962aGjHvRV4S6me+WD/dmW0CkAl3EAFmD91shgSNdeU T3IzDFDvaBEZiOwrLn4MsK5tZ8xI0F4++ny+5k39zf07tnELOWQoAJwCHUFj6Rw0B4P1 Umsw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=rnFvRqkzdgxHVcMGlcZzhi6sxBFeluTv1ah/KRi2PQg=; b=XdFWM9I5l5vx33pFIaRtHOKGJpYyaMObKVuKcqy7SC/lugLbGmFahMH4Oov8e14Tnu rpfK3/h71uKfxeLE6iHvigjxdoB6H1vWR2g0utKvSKX1QVXgs9azXq8+nilmzlAge26q qITuM9n3D3FWXAAExWc5HPnlkhrMFvA46RZJMoSgLRbK2tBunAoxUWW7HulOSdrveW06 8sRHn5H71gI2vaVeGonfpDV+TB6Z8WTjO0D8NuvPipMET7HZxksVZS+te5z0FeUvjUAC 5vxEk0LThLKOI6UL3NyML5DXaYcuspb0zHxxxPs0lUNOSA21PsX2j4GrRU0iFr+v5ENu AOtA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FV6PvF4f3ylplYP3jaEEhmouHvqx5Yd08OeRvWl6hS3X/s2JkD7EH6+AhRzItk1F5/p5EkYOEO3Kw3IXwSp
X-Received: by 10.36.149.137 with SMTP id m131mr15894592itd.94.1464053646570; Mon, 23 May 2016 18:34:06 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.57.2 with HTTP; Mon, 23 May 2016 18:33:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1kPyc-MOzML8RavuhjhsTGVFMp=pMPr3aF2j5coA1qWLw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <574093A8.5040300@gmail.com> <574361A4.9040907@gmail.com> <1914325.ChlqIaE1GT@uberpc.marples.name> <CAPt1N1=Zc-nfHX6F0EMDpnJ178+RUHV8cZRqBk6JRfSZPwjLYA@mail.gmail.com> <CAAedzxrk0KurGJaNx_T2A6ACj9Eio5RDKdzATdvK8JGx6yd0hw@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1kPyc-MOzML8RavuhjhsTGVFMp=pMPr3aF2j5coA1qWLw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 10:33:46 +0900
Message-ID: <CAAedzxp=1JQC=f_bhib3JMoK2Pp8JF=Gpv0=F+gwk2-8+W7F-A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/c-98_ZcV7e4zPoPaloGgRdL4W6I>
Cc: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] 3315bis question: Changing default DUID to DUID-LL?
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 01:34:10 -0000

Hmm, that's not how I would have read that -EN section.  When I read
"enterprise" I think more of "for guaranteed unique use within a
private space" than "these are my unique numbers to give away to all
my friends".

I would never have guessed this use case was an intention (though of
course it makes sense).

On 24 May 2016 at 10:18, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
> Yeah, but they don't do that, so it doesn't matter.  That _is_ why we came
> up with DUID-EN, but as far as I can tell it was a flop. :(
>
>
> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 8:09 PM, Erik Kline <ek@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> It could also be edited for big orgs to use a Vendor-assigned unique ID
>> >> based
>> >> on Enterprise Number, which I'm pretty sure satisfied the provisioning
>> >> case.
>> >
>> >
>> > I've never actually heard of anyone doing this, although I agree that
>> > you
>> > are correct in theory.   :)
>>
>> But might this solve your use case?  If the vendor got an enterprise
>> number and each device was flashed with a unique DUID-EN that was also
>> printed on the box...?
>
>