IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Tue, 16 February 2016 07:38 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.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 7DFF21ACE54 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 23:38:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.384
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.384 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, 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 EblDbvd9wSng for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 23:38:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw0-x229.google.com (mail-yw0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::229]) (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 26DA41ACE8C for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 23:38:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw0-x229.google.com with SMTP id h129so133078550ywb.1 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 23:38:20 -0800 (PST)
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:content-type; bh=p6OLAVocNYUImaZyjUc9+Q+pGPWiuIvvfQMHmmdmvvM=; b=HcUoUTreOJfwqBtGubL6vR5PHLKxcGd0Zld1dt11iUCKNR1I07u3WXtMahQD0O1iY5 m7Ui2Tb4S3xTCEeTDJug2IkTDx2ibHGRpGc8rjYNybWtPuA++fVZE0Nlb0y6TywhO37s pDaiEg9aMbXJ5H3UAXiWB3xV0LJSXpHPWYVK25UThuqct+YeYwH3gh79TKxhGETPEmnS II3TklgDwTY1HP5M3Pd71+GLGpRUPs7agGOVw1P1IzdvsrftTbo+wisa7KkOIFYXKS66 aRWinYexEwZjXNha0/+E3Fh03oQWilE1/a/hL+FvcPQxiHNqCsnuPcVQdSz3QPOwXWIM +cbw==
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:content-type; bh=p6OLAVocNYUImaZyjUc9+Q+pGPWiuIvvfQMHmmdmvvM=; b=DQC5VKTUvbIwMGgcX9oCTzWAD2c8QY2Mas/DWLb8F180rfFGA+otdg/j4MnuCePKJB bQkuOc+aO05brR4Fq3xIldWSWc8uOmrVtsyIIWj3BxQuWv5jbVvcIqmXEHidtAOqZwlY rYapWvWz4dpUCA+fdkvQM8NO/7+zcZ+jpsjgwk0jbhP1U4HD1oGZz5NMfI8puDk1hQtW G3JAZN2xJQEkBfroYxY0K3r7CVRYIVEtcSxKpQX/XmVybImRw9clpplb9vUFRqpTOyes PzxLfoNkU5TYbC8CgpcuP/M+fxUM5/jjYPVUoCWpChgyN32rBoZpOeulQ/5xJDh5VeOY nQBw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOS3SIkXDl4Y6CcWsc5twrn/aVq7EcEym/7oBi+emjnYcMC00exh8cctAY04NptiG979QX/usgbUoXtm0qQn
X-Received: by 10.13.238.194 with SMTP id x185mr12373640ywe.35.1455608299304; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 23:38:19 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.55.80 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 23:37:59 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <003001d1687a$926ab2e0$b74018a0$@huitema.net>
References: <20160201142413.30288.23248.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKD1Yr11tEDEPXkUWj4g_-wL=AgYRu7LYrOkgobEMtwOW4CpEA@mail.gmail.com> <003001d1687a$926ab2e0$b74018a0$@huitema.net>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:37:59 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr0bf6u+ijQ_N61_=m8xrBAjwUJN8m6bLEk+CKOshnmLew@mail.gmail.com>
To: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0310949d38ff052bde378e"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/ju_MwNszeDWC3iaPBChQGOko_ns>
Cc: iesg@ietf.org, dhc-chairs@ietf.org, IETF Discussion <ietf@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, 16 Feb 2016 07:38:21 -0000

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
wrote:

> Well, section 4 of draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile-07 says:
>
>    The choice between the stateful and stateless scenarios depends on
>    flag and prefix options published by the "Router Advertisement"
>    messages of local routers, as specified in [RFC4861].  When these
>    options enable stateless address configuration hosts using the
>    anonymity profile SHOULD choose it over stateful address
>    configuration, because stateless configuration requires fewer
>    information disclosures than stateful configuration.
>
> That seems pretty close from what you want, at least as far as "stateful
> DHCPv6" is concerned.
>

Urg. That statement is pretty hard to understand. In fact, I misunderstood
it for a full 10 minutes until someone explained it to me. I think I
understand it now, and if my understanding is indeed correct, then I would
suggest you clarify it as follows:

   When these options enable stateless address configuration (i.e., when
   the A flag in a Prefix Information Option is set to 1) hosts using the
   anonymity profile SHOULD perform Stateless Address Configuration
   and SHOULD NOT use stateful DHCPv6, because stateless configuration
   requires fewer information disclosures than stateful configuration.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email