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> Mon, 22 February 2016 23:52 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 F04341B2C51 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 15:52:08 -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 IbLrxcOYDFwP for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 15:52:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw0-x234.google.com (mail-yw0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::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 0684F1A8907 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 15:52:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw0-x234.google.com with SMTP id h129so133242562ywb.1 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 15:52:05 -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=gm6rBmjs6ZRiwi3YFIaLUM+Icd5GgpqOyrFGe4RgsOs=; b=Z+OUM9BEi641mFww68jKNXyECj4NiTNpferi3otTjPFJlHGGwP1wWflakJQKInGhkL BbQDDH0YJUX7hrtxoL3+tV/4c4ZGx/GC00POYpK5fPm5Ois93W55mjr55cBejfwbMvGm 27MDmI8HbJUfF4pHfUIWoLkdP2P1uMdkUtw6IUg/YEwYvKBnbanyV7POfX8pz/Y2P6se IQc7Hp65eaZ/0u2ZRZdykO2JCOWBdUFKGTjYE+emu0sy9kPzFdCeSqtundA0ZxrtFYbu Foq0QQK/A3+0cihU5vMl4Y7rIi1fpJSkxXXDTLVQsCAAnNQRNRKjOmDOt2rRycGH/a5k o1jg==
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=gm6rBmjs6ZRiwi3YFIaLUM+Icd5GgpqOyrFGe4RgsOs=; b=gFNBEL+XEXYcKVHJOuZMg8vAXlM6APDbHpeqZtCkbHDU1624a/ihXGKlDnXEKjvcgX cu4w8jWTBW3xc5IqmSVMWsinseFaZ1vvc+/r+xK4OygC4/BuXVNE9XH0KThBmQUSXcRV bBoq2NT5mY42uwU6YTAFqn2gLWe422yqCkK8h+60w4Z2rXkgCbFDcqkiT8EazwUpE2b1 grydGkLaB+7+K0zRA5snobf7sSI9H19vq5F3givE4zOEw6OqVu77AJCEKx4NbaeYdlU2 1cmfM7OnOM/FNjYbY2mtLliUbIrhLD8vbXxW+zOLlsrx1W5wS1aidvwXPmbEucJ3JBVv 8S/g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOTl1S5+RifebdeDZP23sxRHTV5InGXF3Lu2IZnqT9KA4E19TEpHmqMUGClGlDu+gwORGRIun7DDzME7ABHR
X-Received: by 10.13.202.16 with SMTP id m16mr15082507ywd.160.1456185125162; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 15:52:05 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.19.65 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 15:51:45 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <56CB891E.6060902@si6networks.com>
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>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 08:51:45 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr3MdjMrMMW+Mv2n_Ls+94Ry23e8Y_LCXhH1t4nF9Rjm4w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a114f00fa1d4b04052c6485ae"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/lArtcognfSPklrf4bWq319Pfh40>
Cc: IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, dhc-chairs@ietf.org, Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, 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: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 23:52:09 -0000

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 7:18 AM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
wrote:

> >    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
> >
> > I don't see how that text is different from the text that's already in
> > the draft, except it actually provides clear guidance. Why not use it?
>
> The above text (or any similar text already in the I-D) suggests that
> this document should be updating RFC4862. Because it is not only
> specifying that to do when you do DHCPv6, but also whether to do
> SLAAC/DHCPv6 in the fist place.
>

I don't see why. I don't recall a statement in RFC 4862 specifying whether
hosts should use one or the other.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email