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

Brian E Carpenter <> Fri, 12 February 2016 22:15 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 425C11A9100; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 14:15:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.7
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.7 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, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5aoVD2UR26WD; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 14:15:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c03::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC7401A90FF; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 14:15:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id fy10so13559660pac.1; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 14:15:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:to:references:cc:from:organization:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=QjX1x8u89AHG+g5Zf1iyY6GVudVaVU9uyIivDYhy0pM=; b=SYA2GgDCq8qH9DWqonXjz1/0a9MIn2KQw8ZuRFVsj2Xi9tqnn0pXq4ok3eJNtwqhp5 WInbdvJUInSZ4YkbstMY2Kl6v+FDs5ltdBoPier2KqmURvMpCp2q7lFn+sUywW64kMbN et34EQlvf6XnPnC2Z3PIGAHgQ3qjFDlYwVhNpZINN7//QgPE69xhFNF4OI++mhEUHmUN IFA9LRSEtGWxaJ6cc9EATJ4/pS/7KktDsP82UbmHmxZSkH1vwS5SfPjsaVP7QizZG84W fKi4SStJMUoqYwickCyczuXw+el6rol8LA/mmWxfXGJEw9qFSg4I7b82es23qUE6yM/q kjBg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:cc:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=QjX1x8u89AHG+g5Zf1iyY6GVudVaVU9uyIivDYhy0pM=; b=dYBCqFF2zEidyGisP4J/TIwYfaa47QMMHpp1JsW45LktyHfUJVEkbUwOECaPHZcfYM yoI4gBprYRonkRAq9Mk0OzByHvBEiXKvTsVct7bBxWy9Quw4gFW+93OBc672JWwtcwDl 26isQrGgjdt4zDYS+HCOssKN07FxpyFrAv7hXTFiupvZh5cJW4noT4rOz+cVpV1KAwDk pHqYRKz/KGf8PVlX8IaALR/U7gHwkVN3mlINASnYXW7lLmoauYviGuvRayMBgTDJstzk TE1vgoCQJQUOxa8e+yVgO2ilHcCuJv+5xpESRPcvdC8Cf+N1WKmy2DQIfjzhguCAQaKg NnZQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOS1XxkZl2RDFUpmQa0vXgRf3YdxvDqdAdP6QJ/k4b7ab0QKt9bKHwMIVq6xEDNHWQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id gn8mr5606054pac.64.1455315335574; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 14:15:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2406:e007:7084:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781? ([2406:e007:7084:1:28cc:dc4c:9703:6781]) by with ESMTPSA id l62sm21660542pfj.7.2016. (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 12 Feb 2016 14:15:34 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile-06.txt> (Anonymity profile for DHCP clients) to Proposed Standard
To: Christian Huitema <>, "'Templin, Fred L'" <>, =?UTF-8?B?J+elnuaYjumBlA==?= =?UTF-8?B?5ZOJJw==?= <>,
References: <> <> <> <0ee601d165e1$f7e59400$e7b0bc00$>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Organization: University of Auckland
Message-ID: <>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 11:15:43 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0ee601d165e1$f7e59400$e7b0bc00$>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <>
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 22:15:37 -0000

On 13/02/2016 11:08, Christian Huitema wrote:
> On Friday, February 12, 2016 12:48 PM, Fred Templin wrote
>>> From: dhcwg [] On Behalf Of ???? (> JINMEI,
> Tatuya)
>>> 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?
> Yes, exactly that. There was some anxiety that prefix delegation requires
> understanding to whom the prefix is delegated. There are also potential side
> effects if prefix are reassigned quickly to random nodes. All that needs
> further study before we can make a recommendation. We can certainly add a
> bit of text to make that more clear.
>> I don't have a strong opinion on the "SHOULD NOT" in this paragraph, but
> it is
>> very important that this guidance not be taken out of context. This
> document
>> is only about clients that wish to remain anonymous, which does not apply
> to
>> all use cases.
> Yes. Also, we can add text explaining that once these problems are better
> understood and the IETF agrees on the proper way to handle anonymous prefix
> delegation, clients MAY use the agreed upon solution. Which is kind of
> redundant, but if you guys prefer it that way, why not.

To be clear, I don't have a strong opinion on this; it simply seemed like
something the IPv6 community should be aware of before it ends up in an RFC.
I also noticed this morning that it might impact draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability.