IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Tue, 16 February 2016 07:38 UTC

Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.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 A68E71ACE8A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 23:38:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.384
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.384 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 bPmAzzRb2z8I for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 23:38:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw0-x22b.google.com (mail-yw0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::22b]) (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 26D211ACE5C for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 23:38:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw0-x22b.google.com with SMTP id e63so37961860ywc.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 23:38:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=p6OLAVocNYUImaZyjUc9+Q+pGPWiuIvvfQMHmmdmvvM=; b=HcUoUTreOJfwqBtGubL6vR5PHLKxcGd0Zld1dt11iUCKNR1I07u3WXtMahQD0O1iY5 m7Ui2Tb4S3xTCEeTDJug2IkTDx2ibHGRpGc8rjYNybWtPuA++fVZE0Nlb0y6TywhO37s pDaiEg9aMbXJ5H3UAXiWB3xV0LJSXpHPWYVK25UThuqct+YeYwH3gh79TKxhGETPEmnS II3TklgDwTY1HP5M3Pd71+GLGpRUPs7agGOVw1P1IzdvsrftTbo+wisa7KkOIFYXKS66 aRWinYexEwZjXNha0/+E3Fh03oQWilE1/a/hL+FvcPQxiHNqCsnuPcVQdSz3QPOwXWIM +cbw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=p6OLAVocNYUImaZyjUc9+Q+pGPWiuIvvfQMHmmdmvvM=; b=kGfYldN1Dl2xc0M9glZdSSse6WXN5or8Ii9b/gypJ73uoOU1LQ50LZFTL4e/PnFwcy d2funowJe/OIwFBAyCJfHqimKXtKJc9qpDo5QBOpPtN8fWhOgOOZflp1MAZboHtXjCDX WMRpfLsr9rVLGZ1dwpNy55O6a5Ew8vvo4tJppNwcrocS4vK8tK9p7U9DEnoNmDNqqixW bztBeZhDxRLn4l+tt/7eMpoHXtrrleeJllQOwvlrk+YVsoG0vH92E/PqHEwOgECCUzZV omH2ujv45SDGf4FS/RQheDB+r2eOqTCIwitwTc62/TF+7VwIIRUUoNn4pl8/6KJLsGLU j9ew==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOS+nNy82Ck5l/GIgKwziQYf1CWIeDngtpx90FpyipEv/D5E2vV6lOzX8tws0Y7UQyMJdyJ63QgFxZPq8vg+
X-Received: by 10.13.238.194 with SMTP id x185mr12373640ywe.35.1455608299304; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 23:38:19 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.55.80 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Feb 2016 23:37:59 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <003001d1687a$926ab2e0$b74018a0$@huitema.net>
References: <20160201142413.30288.23248.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKD1Yr11tEDEPXkUWj4g_-wL=AgYRu7LYrOkgobEMtwOW4CpEA@mail.gmail.com> <003001d1687a$926ab2e0$b74018a0$@huitema.net>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:37:59 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr0bf6u+ijQ_N61_=m8xrBAjwUJN8m6bLEk+CKOshnmLew@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile-06.txt> (Anonymity profile for DHCP clients) to Proposed Standard
To: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c0310949d38ff052bde378e"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/NRtS-gaN3UvKRYhM5dABKfWNNt8>
Cc: iesg@ietf.org, dhc-chairs@ietf.org, IETF Discussion <ietf@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, 16 Feb 2016 07:38:23 -0000

On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
wrote:

> Well, section 4 of draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile-07 says:
>
>    The choice between the stateful and stateless scenarios depends on
>    flag and prefix options published by the "Router Advertisement"
>    messages of local routers, as specified in [RFC4861].  When these
>    options enable stateless address configuration hosts using the
>    anonymity profile SHOULD choose it over stateful address
>    configuration, because stateless configuration requires fewer
>    information disclosures than stateful configuration.
>
> That seems pretty close from what you want, at least as far as "stateful
> DHCPv6" is concerned.
>

Urg. That statement is pretty hard to understand. In fact, I misunderstood
it for a full 10 minutes until someone explained it to me. I think I
understand it now, and if my understanding is indeed correct, then I would
suggest you clarify it as follows:

   When these options enable stateless address configuration (i.e., when
   the A flag in a Prefix Information Option is set to 1) hosts using the
   anonymity profile SHOULD perform Stateless Address Configuration
   and SHOULD NOT use stateful DHCPv6, because stateless configuration
   requires fewer information disclosures than stateful configuration.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email