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

Lorenzo Colitti <> Tue, 23 February 2016 13:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20B4F1A6FE0 for <>; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 05:45:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.384
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cvFBZZUhEA9l for <>; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 05:45:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B41B61A1B56 for <>; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 05:45:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id e63so145863406ywc.3 for <>; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 05:45:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=aIMuojA+LsupLTL7YOJK9O9/3YNWJHnmbqZrX9IdQBo=; b=Cr7UNgiwwUG0ojGU4uyTGl0oXjscyBbpJZdiCOOmh1uEwxAs+MhjrpVJVrlTUdRsdz SQulxsJBk7pwLnx33XGtYwRPVLk2zxwpwuvbhrUz+gYklQkrmgNTaD2/9n3RmZhaEKQg WI3lL+Bx+taXY7hw4CytEoDgS1/iUs66GvfKDnzFwDoRVB0P5H4Z2gv0MdRgGZamZwqW DAWL2fU0LKpCv/oaNR8824prLoQ3fttOqQEDJo+fs9ITqRmnyDZRgnq/6A46SnQuHuVE X1MAQflUKne2VSFrL1X0VkKh4h2pcPOKFLf85wle7711FYBTX07FvqVp35uBxnPiSLqu Pu0A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=aIMuojA+LsupLTL7YOJK9O9/3YNWJHnmbqZrX9IdQBo=; b=EdcTocuVSqfTAt8z9AC33XLSCoQ9y2I8uC3uJQG9oonRfSIxH20EpmDLZcsFsAxSeq QekALhs/oI2ItzL5q06mcw6pQ9CvVnRzKmzmH5NkmIE20pmEOdAY+7CEYvjIANMwuKc8 BYaEC/ZYoidgp4M1Al74VraKl9NzuN1aCzik87MpJ9Vy53XZZvapHBFK1Mxh0bFYZCXT 5jbVnzf3TcAhcCuGX0AjSRRUO3pUP/lRXrrCXTn4GLYQTqFkOtxSDdDk3woJluIe8PyD qMgvVqlNght4+E2aIazQ0TmndTYdAD8NAStSI+mPduDEkCb+gztmZ0vsIPz2G7H9aY52 SNvw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOSlBeOWfi2Km9S/mj787H454o7MhjRwtVf31q3LXC6SxXi65aY1y7jxbdvZyl3mB/aRYT4GzbInODIZxg8D
X-Received: by with SMTP id m16mr16374926ywd.160.1456235153908; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 05:45:53 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 05:45:34 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <003001d1687a$926ab2e0$b74018a0$> <> <> <> <> <> <> <019301d16e1d$979ed1d0$c6dc7570$> <> <> <>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 22:45:34 +0900
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile-06.txt> (Anonymity profile for DHCP clients) to Proposed Standard
To: Fernando Gont <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114f00fa0f6642052c702b4b
Archived-At: <>
Cc: IETF Discussion <>,, Christian Huitema <>,,, "" <>
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: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 13:45:56 -0000

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 10:34 PM, Fernando Gont <>

> This is the first one I found:
>    Moreover, information
>    may also be obtained through other dynamic means like DHCPv6.  Hosts
>    accept the union of all received information; the receipt of a Router
>    Advertisement MUST NOT invalidate all information received in a
>    previous advertisement or from another source.

This text is also unaffected by the current draft. The draft says that the
host should decide whether or not to do DHCPv6 based on the information in
Router Advertisements. That does not contradict RFC 4861: since DHCPv6
requires an explicit request from the host before anything happens,
choosing *not to start* DHCPv6 does not "invalidate" anything obtained from
DHCPv6. If DHCPv6 was not started, then the host will have received nothing
from DHCPv6, and there is nothing to invalidate.

> Besides, what if say, there's different address information available
> via RA vs DHCPv6? --the text I cited above suggests that you accept the
> union, but you suggest that you accept only the info provided by the RAs.

The draft doesn't say that the host shouldn't accept information provided
by DHCPv6. It says that the host shouldn't request such information if it
has all it needs from something else.

> Again, I don't disagree (per se) with the proposal to do SLAAC rather
> than DHCPv6 . But, I just think the behavior being suggested differs
> from what we currently have -- hence the suggested "Update".

The behaviour that we currently have is due to what implementations chose
to do, not to what standards track RFCs say.