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, 23 February 2016 00:35 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 EDEE51A017A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 16:35:54 -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 85IvgFNCTE5y for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 16:35:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-io0-x231.google.com (mail-io0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c06::231]) (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 3634C1A6FCF for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 16:35:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-io0-x231.google.com with SMTP id z135so196870725iof.0 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 16:35:53 -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=Kaa/fPGDUSdm/BE8AoTlWyfQoNl8BqYv6AUK6eVZ65E=; b=mHp3fKYkXHjqMgmes1/mDEKOqxGSCpT4YJgaWXieP1cCYw6QcGQ39A8yIfcu3RNf+x Vo2cjpsohVOhZAGqqwbL509nW52LWUrilKoud6uitu7AGISOM4vvI5+n1pd/hKu5ABDC uZiEJmtH5x59IqtUr/XHcWbjo7G65S23qXhngU5dTgenidtbGTJ7nsRSV5dXz/cEFMj4 FpkRO4u3HzM35WyT6BAumQ5AKCsRQKbaP5atVDStxXk0JU2fF7YCkUawWTTof+P/gyoe iuckh92EhsG84IXqVZxo8TTDzg18qVohomOKf/XcNS1BjjRMEwOrdlAqXZvKgp4DjL4L Z7ow==
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=Kaa/fPGDUSdm/BE8AoTlWyfQoNl8BqYv6AUK6eVZ65E=; b=L9s0Ut9MRLBIx5ypEgSs3NhqU6Oy+Bbry2EwyNaVKp+mYcKaubozneJiqgco5/+QR4 dvXD91JTB4w70DVRDpjnr0VQ0cRc3smFIbrJ6ZmzOgL5TZ6CrqAqVoxPJANPfZdbyTsq NlJTwtuEdg7rZV+u/rwKZyI0plwRACdZ4EWYF+lXV1UkaIwdHq4tkvWXZ2CfAR3eqjow FlEiNYCAjH42QoAh0NCTlMeio/qBYCdfY54ZkdIY0jO3VTK/C+9Hd2lM4QBafQTTRExN mUOrrYP7hRJjnfwPckEZ0VoB3gqoJOUx4c1G16+8W+fyNDRir5xxmyb9J6R6/sB4Yx+q Y2CA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YORFN2xs7QOtP+p1wEtm3gktx6NATUo53Yc5dp7ROY4re2HHZl6Nd3he1oD6jGXtdNCjrGCJ6fLWlQJWG5ZH
X-Received: by 10.107.150.2 with SMTP id y2mr32595339iod.113.1456187752476; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 16:35:52 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.2.168 with HTTP; Mon, 22 Feb 2016 16:35:32 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <56CBA305.1050400@si6networks.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>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 09:35:32 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr3fA4+vdfUbxxxVvbpy8JRHC8TuKqXHHv6F9HBj2rL=fA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile-06.txt> (Anonymity profile for DHCP clients) to Proposed Standard
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1140ed3ab6f0df052c6521da
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/keQ9UnfJRb1E4WjvYaSgzYUHM80>
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 00:35:55 -0000

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
wrote:

> >     The above text (or any similar text already in the I-D) suggests that
> >     this document should be updating RFC4862. Because it is not only
> >     specifying that to do when you do DHCPv6, but also whether to do
> >     SLAAC/DHCPv6 in the fist place.
> >
> >
> > I don't see why. I don't recall a statement in RFC 4862 specifying
> > whether hosts should use one or the other.
>
> But the authors are making such statement here. i.e., if you are going
> to implement SLAAC/DHCPv6, then this statement affects your
> implementation. Hence, an appropriate tag should be included (i.e., such
> that if I look at RFC4862 or RFC3315, it's clear that I should look at
> this document, too).


I still don't see why this document needs to formally "updates: RFC 4862"
if it doesn't affect any text in it.