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

Erik Kline <ek@google.com> Tue, 24 May 2016 02:41 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 CF7E112D5C3 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 May 2016 19:41:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.426
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.426 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, 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 D4_N5voPOZ-p for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 May 2016 19:41:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-it0-x22f.google.com (mail-it0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c0b::22f]) (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 623F712B05E for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 May 2016 19:41:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-it0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id l63so4070338ita.1 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 May 2016 19:41:45 -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=TKDV6w//La3rp8dof6yYsDY/Sz7G0g1lRa4qEMPTsIY=; b=H2Bqq5pi+a/3C+Xi4RHtmswaiUz0g9CkyeRx44qJa0q9O0hOq1CA3IpFvv6Csi6+2v oiFMTAdROgVzs7yDBLA217V7BrWcjb3SbhSEXqCBndj+zy66sYkvSt3KIKJoVv/p2FEl cQZY9UJxsbbuVXbWTqioNoY8smoQrk1VmehtoJoWboQFUwgFHR14sJschcScI/3bzP7r +onErxRVtSblnbLY5MkJWYBRmw/9nBTaYmLIxzkqMV3xCnvqWofTH4tm1vEhCA8zMf+M WEVNEto9mhn3mXT5qu73FVNvIR+j+TxoDngwBZ69jTPO7xE475jiui9HBIje3G+VxIyZ TZ4Q==
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=TKDV6w//La3rp8dof6yYsDY/Sz7G0g1lRa4qEMPTsIY=; b=gIlHMaSMAwSoQmzHI+UiYqMuCUqt2TumuewK3qZ95ZlBKnlKnf7X/22UmxgEM0FInn /Z3eMvyJkS5uimEK8fSK3rvPdRJ+VL2mbc/y/QWuMaeu/C04hzOW5rc0LE/KFWPd76LM BpamZ5E3orEJjoGBD8FKehfWtB1wMOTqNd/BqBv01tqSuLht3e2NAVB7VoW0I58SkVC1 eE7Mh0DOqtQQU20d/9WAq0i0rovGwNXky7bwa9o2+Ddje+URHKE/+A+qsaOa7Au30fNH ti6U97Z5CS8VUMlb59P+hpbafik66ul2+nBamxS8KF0JyCtKw5+0CZMNphE29uLM2rFQ s/3w==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOPr4FWNOp1XIsc0ldCj01yT6+vqP6Pkyg4twq9LVX3oaqw/anu7/pDjAKLMXnh25Z7FkbioIEO8wYZhJQ11mq/y
X-Received: by 10.36.92.131 with SMTP id q125mr14691892itb.21.1464057704601; Mon, 23 May 2016 19:41:44 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.57.2 with HTTP; Mon, 23 May 2016 19:41:25 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPt1N1mqCAWW0TMEpVufronYThL0qAOMwB6qZ_-sbuCymWfNkQ@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> <CAAedzxp=1JQC=f_bhib3JMoK2Pp8JF=Gpv0=F+gwk2-8+W7F-A@mail.gmail.com> <CAPt1N1mqCAWW0TMEpVufronYThL0qAOMwB6qZ_-sbuCymWfNkQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>
Date: Tue, 24 May 2016 11:41:25 +0900
Message-ID: <CAAedzxocMbBfMACNZeppQZKExzuZyP1_iwOVwtx0BaN5q9jEwg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114456706a330305338d7f0f
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/fTlJY86Wfg-Uu-F3DxV3y0RrdXc>
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 02:41:47 -0000

I was guessing the latter, not the former.  Probably just a product of my
broken brain, though.

On 24 May 2016 at 11:26, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:

> Hm, to be clear, the intention was that a large manufacturer of devices
> might want their own number space, not that a large organization purchasing
> heterogeneous devices might then generate DUIDs for those devices out of a
> single enterprise number space.   I may have misunderstood what you were
> suggesting.
>
> On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 9:33 PM, Erik Kline <ek@google.com> wrote:
>
>> 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...?
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>