Gen-ART LC review: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-privacy-03

Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com> Tue, 02 February 2016 16:39 UTC

Return-Path: <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
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 B86061B2D36; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 08:39:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-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 Z9TOirFVHPsi; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 08:39:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (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 CBEC31B2D38; Tue, 2 Feb 2016 08:39:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from unnumerable.local (pool-173-57-158-165.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [173.57.158.165]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.14.9) with ESMTPSA id u12GcxlW064731 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=OK); Tue, 2 Feb 2016 10:38:59 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from rjsparks@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host pool-173-57-158-165.dllstx.fios.verizon.net [173.57.158.165] claimed to be unnumerable.local
To: 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
From: Robert Sparks <rjsparks@nostrum.com>
Subject: Gen-ART LC review: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-privacy-03
Message-ID: <56B0DBA3.2050406@nostrum.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Feb 2016 10:38:59 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/I4usmaZ8XWSP1h5_vxgaQ6oaqlg>
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, 02 Feb 2016 16:39:08 -0000

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-privacy-03
Reviewer: Robert Sparks
Review Date: 2Feb2015
IETF LC End Date:4Feb2015
IESG Telechat date: Not yet scheduled

Summary: Ready with nits that should be addressed before publication

The reference to ietf-6man-ivp6-address-generation-privacy should be 
normative, and when this document is pointing to it because it is 
discussing a field carrying a generated address, it should be more 
explicit about why it's making the reference.

In section 4.3 the paragraph on Hash allocation should note that even a 
well implemented hash does not mitigate the threat of correlation over time.

In section 4.3, the paragraph on Random allocation comments on the poor 
performance of a specific simplistic implementation of random selection. 
More efficient algorithms exist. But the discussion is mostly irrelevant 
to the document. Please simplify this paragraph to focus on the benefits 
of random allocation.

Should section 5.3 also call out mapping IP addresses into geolocation?

Why doesn't section 5.5 also talk about things like MAC addresses?

Section 5.6 could probably borrow words from RFC7258 - it should at 
least reference it (currently there is only a reference from the 
introduction.)