IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Thu, 28 May 2015 12:22 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6F801A90DF; Thu, 28 May 2015 05:22:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.21
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.21 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 oIibM06UHkCk; Thu, 28 May 2015 05:22:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B991C1A90DB; Thu, 28 May 2015 05:22:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 870F7BEF5; Thu, 28 May 2015 13:22:33 +0100 (IST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KCP1wsWXBs4A; Thu, 28 May 2015 13:22:33 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [134.226.36.180] (stephen-think.dsg.cs.tcd.ie [134.226.36.180]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5EA13BEF4; Thu, 28 May 2015 13:22:33 +0100 (IST)
Message-ID: <55670889.30503@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2015 13:22:33 +0100
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>, "sthaug@nethelp.no" <sthaug@nethelp.no>
References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1CAF5DA3@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <55670179.8030400@cs.tcd.ie> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1CAF5EC1@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <20150528.141105.74661164.sthaug@nethelp.no> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1CAF6142@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1CAF6142@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
OpenPGP: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/cGa0Uh2QxpOGVTToxypMPoWjBuc>
Cc: "draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation.ad@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation.ad@ietf.org>, "dhc-chairs@ietf.org" <dhc-chairs@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation@ietf.org>, "iesg@ietf.org" <iesg@ietf.org>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation.shepherd@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation.shepherd@ietf.org>, "Ted.Lemon@nominum.com" <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Stephen Farrell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation-07: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Thu, 28 May 2015 12:22:36 -0000


On 28/05/15 13:19, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
> Note also that there is work going on in the DHC WG to address
> privacy issues - see draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile-00. And one of
> the authors (the primary author) is from Microsoft so I am sure this
> is on their radar.

So just to be clear: the reason I'm asking about this is mainly
that I want to be sure that this draft doesn't make deploying
the privacy one harder/impossible.

S.

PS: Am in a bit of a rush to get something else done right now
so probably won't be able to continue this discussion until later
or tomorrow.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email