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

Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Tue, 23 February 2016 13:18 UTC

Return-Path: <brian@innovationslab.net>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11C401B2B65; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 05:18:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] 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 9tAATZ3n_Ffz; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 05:18:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D38061B2B69; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 05:18:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AEE3B88155; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 05:18:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clemson.jhuapl.edu (swifi-nat.jhuapl.edu [128.244.87.133]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9514328081A; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 05:18:33 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile-06.txt> (Anonymity profile for DHCP clients) to Proposed Standard
To: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.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> <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> <CAKD1Yr0Q6ge2qOFJ1o90mwdLr3mYEQF6uiy6=xUEgpLr-0cC_g@mail.gmail.com> <36ECA639-8F30-4DBF-94EF-55685B28E953@ecs.soton.ac.uk> <EMEW3|2f1684467327348fadd8e3176ed6f3eas1MCo503tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|36ECA639-8F30-4DBF-94EF-55685B28E953@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
Message-ID: <56CC5C23.4070401@innovationslab.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 08:18:27 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <EMEW3|2f1684467327348fadd8e3176ed6f3eas1MCo503tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|36ECA639-8F30-4DBF-94EF-55685B28E953@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="e4B4PgFlS7xsbwAC1fu7cSHapAiHDvo6k"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/DhPi5lo7oL-vZjIbkn4Pe8WdUJ8>
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>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 13:18:39 -0000

All,

On 2/23/16 7:50 AM, Tim Chown wrote:
>> On 23 Feb 2016, at 12:47, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com <mailto:fgont@si6networks.com>> 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...
> 

As shepherding AD, I believe the consensus is that there is not a need
to have this document update RFC 4861/4862.

Regards,
Brian