Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-privacy-03

Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com> Tue, 16 February 2016 15:35 UTC

Return-Path: <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gen-art@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BA351B2DD8; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 07:35:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 3ADfwGDwyN0z; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 07:35:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-x230.google.com (mail-lb0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::230]) (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 DC2BF1B2DD5; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 07:35:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-x230.google.com with SMTP id bc4so97578850lbc.2; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 07:35:38 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=fg5AxvYldkKQjhuziSFclwdzU83eELYEumEXITcB1NE=; b=C+19AvaH5d8w8Cr8qfRmSv2uCZmB5oH4aySXo7jxpWqRbEDysHj9UG9FBWac15b/1a UkiM1YIxrejuYfJopS7gBwtzSUbuMc5NVVzo1hcVp3TvnCiqSWGquH0dz0BzKM4mooKB XRivpnVvTD1zI7KQdRD/DZiMF130nDY9vIoF5v770nU8kePK1h01WTosSR6dsX1Xb/KQ BPXCvi8y59Cd7vI6y2UGRIvGHThUbBCnPAAx0CSswf8RJDnw1UIUcnmu4kOafTsJpDJ2 n6mkZcuM7v9ku+irYnFRM10kNyEhYmAmn44ANKW3bR4A8H3g90tW8npxCy6PE5A6/09R 3qSQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=fg5AxvYldkKQjhuziSFclwdzU83eELYEumEXITcB1NE=; b=jwwKPbWl7851wTRq4MDy2RpEJVAclbEpoofKqpOS7mPE4mBwmSth++ORgOZWCHOzzf 4fT3mbKzx16krlSYFYmwt4tH1il9Si5oF9VE1/GOHkjShXXRHBBYmNaFj0zxQKPXXyav K7ST9C6T7p8BWpBwVn5oCDAZNQkme5cqcTZlUPxE8RjVwr5mSQDsn8rcX5B/b7Wvul+P q5tNfpv8ZcMm4dYF2bwQWTZLlprAHOVPqFhqmzzKJOFuMdxUV/sRL8N8mBMq4ac+H2Hk 1JFbqoQOM9XWlEjdwxwAkNBG7safJLg9MKMCsYzTXWLbeeo7C2YlwOPcZdikdePzl3vX mqDA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOQlDpnyqDO3DuBio43xTBtK7QnX4KTlYbknWHlzaK/vsGAMAOvjYnJOLj9Y/ZbxkQ==
X-Received: by 10.112.138.166 with SMTP id qr6mr10192138lbb.106.1455636937112; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 07:35:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.0.100] (109107011157.gdansk.vectranet.pl. [109.107.11.157]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id ei4sm4408482lbb.18.2016.02.16.07.35.34 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 16 Feb 2016 07:35:35 -0800 (PST)
To: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>, General Area Review Team <gen-art@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-privacy.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-privacy.all@ietf.org>
References: <56B0DBA3.2050406@nostrum.com> <56C238F8.4040400@gmail.com> <56C23FE6.5000207@nostrum.com> <3990c04ce860428ab90d0142102b7bfc@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <56C24CCB.9060802@nostrum.com>
From: Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <56C341C5.3080905@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:35:33 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56C24CCB.9060802@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gen-art/d3eDyciveqZtm4Hgh5woLZqR0A8>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-ART LC review: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-privacy-03
X-BeenThere: gen-art@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <gen-art.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gen-art/>
List-Post: <mailto:gen-art@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art>, <mailto:gen-art-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:35:41 -0000

On 15.02.2016 23:10, Robert Sparks wrote:
> On 2/15/16 3:37 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
>> Perhaps we should get away from whether something is easy or difficult
>> to implement or whether the algorithm may be more (or less) efficient.
>>
>> I think the point of this material is to ENCOURAGE random assignment
>> rather than sequential to improve privacy- so keep it at that. Let
>> implementers worry about how efficient an algorithm is?
> Right - that's where I'm trying to get the document to go.

This document doesn't encourage anything. It's an analysis and that is
clearly stated in the abstract. Anyway, it seems that people prefer the
performance text to disappear, so it's now gone.

In fact, this topic may be a material for another draft altogether.
Those two drafts (dhcp-privacy and dhcpv6-privacy) analysed the
situation mostly from the client perspective and dhc-anonymity-profile
attempts to address the issues raised on the client side. The whole
paragraph about allocation strategy is just an attempt to cover aspects
that, while implemented on the server side, still affect the client. I
suppose we could consider a draft that would provide similar
recommendations for privacy conscious DHCP server. It's not immediately
clear whether there's enough topics for a separate draft, but this
remains to be seen.

Anyway, I just uploaded -04 that hopefully is acceptable. It does not
contain the performance discussion. The direct link is:
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-privacy-04.txt

Tomek