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

Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Tue, 23 February 2016 12:50 UTC

Return-Path: <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
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 21A2B1ACDED; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 04:50:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.226
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.226 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, SPF_NEUTRAL=0.779] 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 Swvowp49TjtM; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 04:50:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [IPv6:2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 506441ACDE1; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 04:50:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u1NCo5t9007093; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 12:50:05 GMT
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.2 falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk u1NCo5t9007093
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=simple/simple; d=ecs.soton.ac.uk; s=201304; t=1456231806; bh=BM59Aqbgg6tTIUJR37qVeT601+s=; h=Mime-Version:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=OX5+8hl8KSaPOvo+5u7sG81YQnGTiMFLk1zVOA4mhsPLd/T2RSA0nxi6hTxHsmmwA 1FmX6r65Vso/9P86p4DzCg6750IdIFGk+LlzthcOAAimGSjxMcoblCFcPN+J1zRZd6 8o3RvXOBHT5Z2xrjZXnibPtE5MbWa2hs9XjUFHlI=
Received: from gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25d]) by falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk (falcon.ecs.soton.ac.uk [2001:630:d0:f102::25e]) envelope-from <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk> with ESMTP (valid=N/A) id s1MCo51795907509VO ret-id none; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 12:50:06 +0000
Received: from [145.100.47.106] ([145.100.47.106]) (authenticated bits=0) by gander.ecs.soton.ac.uk (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id u1NCo0ix028879 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 23 Feb 2016 12:50:01 GMT
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_8B54EC66-FA65-4ACC-B4EF-B051126095B8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile-06.txt> (Anonymity profile for DHCP clients) to Proposed Standard
From: Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr0Q6ge2qOFJ1o90mwdLr3mYEQF6uiy6=xUEgpLr-0cC_g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 12:50:01 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|2f1684467327348fadd8e3176ed6f3eas1MCo503tjc|ecs.soton.ac.uk|36ECA639-8F30-4DBF-94EF-55685B28E953@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
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>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
X-ECS-MailScanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean
X-smtpf-Report: sid=s1MCo5179590750900; tid=s1MCo51795907509VO; client=relay,ipv6; mail=; rcpt=; nrcpt=8:0; fails=0
X-ECS-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information
X-ECS-MailScanner-ID: u1NCo5t9007093
X-ECS-MailScanner-From: tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/TatQPrBXjwEo4moLz048oiRFw34>
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 12:50:21 -0000

> 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...

Tim