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

神明達哉 <> Fri, 12 February 2016 19:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 358DF1A88F0; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 11:26:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.978
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xvikD7Q7221O; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 11:25:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3D311A88EA; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 11:25:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id 9so102258973iom.1; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 11:25:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=unA7ThUL79Ab8pzgjRpfaGOllEZ8QwaLZ9t8wP/wwBI=; b=Nf/aS7p2uFZDOXtzJ34KBwTj+/72iV6jJFyAgn12Pic2Vcc37ZottEpS2TMGQ0ug+9 MlM9z2m85bnVYw7x1b1MFkHvGVahMt+i/Zw9UQwK4wFRlzSjFOMRrZdKjR6y1rfeNhB+ Ek/5kO4tgMtzkG0PseoUny1U0jpHCbkBskrXi/E9pDz962/TP7OHNN8hGB2YiDjpCF2I fXGKeC6356JQHRqmRoiGypliuz3ZjDxMo2HDLBrT9c/z/MyYcGE/0Y34CHqwjUyXXcwa UjjCT7mp1UmU30mUOxfdCMpwzUXoltx3ayfOY4ySOKDZKcIZKTaPqvOIGdGI6STjUNYv 5JUw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=unA7ThUL79Ab8pzgjRpfaGOllEZ8QwaLZ9t8wP/wwBI=; b=Ped0VuQQGBbT/HL3kRUH1I1gv8WKjhi7e/HOCCUhV9w1Z3TEVwB/iUFy1jITaL17kG /Q8gMaowtplfxdf4IUmjtoY8vurihY/EEg4/4dFQEL0oX6GZT5nSN4u4CQHOojqSTIO6 TnIXjkunQXOrmFwbym9JRfiEPogMS4Ds39OKUHsxm1BxjEOlb3xtnC7eOVNoZ9YXpr9o wPdnjJtZ3cgWEYQp/y1yu9GPSrfkASdqexlwy/SH9hTz5dXu/ZCgh3wSqYSFxnGplzKF aN3daVXrUVVA+jb4TKKHMMIeuG1YOe5uSc/nUAaFmw0/qstM65WpUn1WC5Wcr4X42VR5 8tRA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YORgd40zzNRTocJlBd42pT+OIQKngLPhA6HPZkRFXLPUUtsPOBfEYMvAmh1xG27MmnNw1ZVTPmgIZA29IA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id i129mr5341777iof.4.1455305159055; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 11:25:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with HTTP; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 11:25:58 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 11:25:58 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 8-9HM-kg4R6n_f_IVs2ZP_n3pCQ
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile-06.txt> (Anonymity profile for DHCP clients) to Proposed Standard
From: =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 08:10:43 -0800
Cc:,, IETF-Announce <>, "" <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 19:26:01 -0000

On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 6:24 AM, The IESG <> wrote:

> The IESG has received a request from the Dynamic Host Configuration WG
> (dhc) to consider the following document:
> - 'Anonymity profile for DHCP clients'
>   <draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile-06.txt> as Proposed Standard
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> mailing lists by 2016-02-15. Exceptionally, comments may be
> sent to instead. In either case, please retain the
> beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Brian Carpenter called for an attention to Section 4.5.2 of the draft:

so I'm responding to it.

4.5.2.  Prefix delegation

   The interaction between prefix delegation and anonymity require
   further study.  For now, the simple solution is to avoid using prefix
   delegation when striving for anonymity.  When using the anonymity
   profiles, clients SHOULD NOT use IA_PD, the prefix delegation form of
   address assignment.

I'm not sure what Brian tried to indicate in his message, but at least
this section looks vague to me about the rationale for the "SHOULD
NOT".  It's not obvious to me how IA_PD is worse than IA_NA in terms
of privacy.  Is this a "SHOULD NOT" simply because the "interaction"
(is not yet fully understood and) requires further study?

JINMEI, Tatuya