IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile-06.txt> (Anonymity profile for DHCP clients) to Proposed Standard

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Tue, 23 February 2016 17:35 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com>
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 6500B1B3150; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 09:35:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 tlfjdnvyWr1y; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 09:35:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-x22d.google.com (mail-io0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::22d]) (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 EFD251ACD4E; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 09:35:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id 9so222707233iom.1; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 09:35:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=FspTmB5v9nZFuhcXEONehE8PoJ2fvxkxQDM8LcZcUgw=; b=kq/1+ej9phS1klIjbs0pgnxYJUg8TWlMMybH6b/IOM6xbdhqwLs6UOdCtkFYAis+tJ dx4hEOhWlBlgYXGTZp5ab7FIFgkNlhi5A6sFdOQ6eylwwrN+Go67+pzzEqPmUKPQjHSr rzd8seOfpsZbBqOQyyrYpsKPmMSg6DPrzS/zeu+nx7yScvYoxVpL6Sipu9QWaXJxYPAI UCe/YQYNG49DPQq6OxBNW5sA8CIX8/uuW1opRFiZ3Y1ET9468SycCFz00FKQ1C2ZHEE8 Puaxu2qsZwFvQ6+b/zdC+vbpqBL7s1Y9WiqhjaSyI3Gcu+xCMt5X0qTsrN4JwSSwDTmU ZaGw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=FspTmB5v9nZFuhcXEONehE8PoJ2fvxkxQDM8LcZcUgw=; b=U4pGEntaijDFzU4DwElFza5JBOltpnhzFj9DOzSEu3JcMHHzKEH0B5/IrH8FgWkw2s 2bD8s/KQOLPnjLdaBhQiNSVOLpx8JR3RLSDxfixetrf49ixTCsjVwjwJ6t7uoO56pqgH u6B+kkZBQmOoAkJOZv0pwqWPuSYoYmjf7BFenN8lsF5bQCB1B40OxIiOY6usWNhr9Njb IGg5AcaKGCBBHjlqHYDCpz300Xga5dudiOtuLDjM5UwGFdei5t9/626ARm4XTiqI5qLG yJnaWBzjX4k8DPaC1N+OhMS8ImXlwg/XmDS4oHHjAtRn6ZDhJcldlFvwlZzSmQAdX8ye NxZw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YORa7Aya95wtJLiwZfpAk/Q+ix8/S83L6OvYkHghLwxPItGBj3xd28yOJiSuJccaM5n22Usg3swvg/JCEA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.137.142 with SMTP id t14mr38546191ioi.172.1456248955428; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 09:35:55 -0800 (PST)
Sender: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com
Received: by 10.107.169.35 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 09:35:55 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <EMEW3|2f1684467327348fadd8e3176ed6f3eas1MCo503tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|36ECA639-8F30-4DBF-94EF-55685B28E953@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
References: <20160201142413.30288.23248.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKD1Yr11tEDEPXkUWj4g_-wL=AgYRu7LYrOkgobEMtwOW4CpEA@mail.gmail.com> <003001d1687a$926ab2e0$b74018a0$@huitema.net> <56C3161F.3070301@innovationslab.net> <CAKD1Yr15EYQdS3XR4zenqmpBn2K2Zue2a+mMz1m+Vw54ou7zZQ@mail.gmail.com> <56CB891E.6060902@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr3MdjMrMMW+Mv2n_Ls+94Ry23e8Y_LCXhH1t4nF9Rjm4w@mail.gmail.com> <56CBA305.1050400@si6networks.com> <CAKD1Yr3fA4+vdfUbxxxVvbpy8JRHC8TuKqXHHv6F9HBj2rL=fA@mail.gmail.com> <019301d16e1d$979ed1d0$c6dc7570$@huitema.net> <56CC3D31.6000403@si6networks.com> <36ECA639-8F30-4DBF-94EF-55685B28E953@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <CAKD1Yr0Q6ge2qOFJ1o90mwdLr3mYEQF6uiy6=xUEgpLr-0cC_g@mail.gmail.com> <EMEW3|2f1684467327348fadd8e3176ed6f3eas1MCo503tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|36ECA639-8F30-4DBF-94EF-55685B28E953@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 09:35:55 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: IYfZKK89EQyZkWzrkzpNwTS9IKA
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqeSRNdR_-m_dzxfUvPNM+AOz-1fum-OREYz+Wyb7zrsPg@mail.gmail.com>
From: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
To: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/jbVk7cHRQ-L9mDr7TTfi33KNgQA>
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, dhc-chairs@ietf.org, Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile@ietf.org, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile-06.txt> (Anonymity profile for DHCP clients) to Proposed Standard
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: <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, 23 Feb 2016 17:35:57 -0000

At Tue, 23 Feb 2016 12:50:01 +0000,
Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:

> > That's actually the contrary of what the specs say today: if M=1 you do
> > DHCPv6, not SLAAC.
> >
> > I don't see any statement in 4861 that says that. Per 4861, M=1 means "DHCPv6 is available", not "nodes should do DHCPv6". Relevant text:
> >
> >       M              1-bit "Managed address configuration" flag.  When
> >                      set, it indicates that addresses are available via
> >                      Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol [DHCPv6]
>
> I agree. It’s always just been a hint, no more, no less. And it’s been discussed many times...

+1.  I understand it may look subtle and could be confusing probably
because it was a kind of compromise as we could reach consensus on how
M/A flags should actually work.  But, however it looks, I'm pretty
sure that the intent of RFC4861 is that we do NOT say "if M=1 you do
DHCPv6", and that was intentional.  Let alone RFC4862 (for which I
happen to be a document editor): it even removed references to the M/O
flags:

   o  Removed the text regarding the M and O flags, considering the
      maturity of implementations and operational experiences.
      ManagedFlag and OtherConfigFlag were removed accordingly.  (Note
      that this change does not mean the use of these flags is
      deprecated.)

As such, I don't see the need for adding the "update: RFC 4682" mark
because of the proposed text.  (I don't have a particular opinion on
the text itself, btw).

--
JINMEI, Tatuya

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email