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

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Tue, 23 February 2016 18:37 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 CB98F1A0854; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 10:37:38 -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, SPF_PASS=-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 u22TjEjoEQs3; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 10:37:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 638671A0469; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 10:37:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.2.101] (unknown [181.165.125.191]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2305580D48; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 19:37:29 +0100 (CET)
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile-06.txt> (Anonymity profile for DHCP clients) to Proposed Standard
To: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, 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> <56CC3BA3.2050303@si6networks.com> <56CCA4EA.1020709@cs.tcd.ie>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Enigmail-Draft-Status: N1110
Message-ID: <56CCA6A8.3030305@si6networks.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 15:36:24 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <56CCA4EA.1020709@cs.tcd.ie>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/PQHCzcXZighzpjCZOQM23f6YcbM>
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 18:37:39 -0000

Stephen,

On 02/23/2016 03:28 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> 
> On 23/02/16 10:59, Fernando Gont wrote:
>>
>> I'm not saying the above is good or bad, but that's an update, and
>> deserves a corresponding "update tag".
> 
> FWIW, I've no opinion here but please be aware that different working
> definitions of the "updates" relationship are concurrently in use in
> different bits of the IETF. For some, it means "you really need to
> read this" for others its "a new implementer of the old thing really
> needs to also include the new code" and those aren't always the same.
> There are probably other not-unreasonable meanings one could come up
> with too. I'd not get hung up on it generally myself.

Thanks for the note, and I agree with your view.

That said... isn't this an indication that we should converge on
*something* regarding the meaning of "updates"? (i.e., it should be
clear what it means, and what rules should be applied when deciding when
a "Updates" tag is warranted or not)

Cheers,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492