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

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Tue, 23 February 2016 18:44 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 CB6091A1BD9; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 10:44:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.307
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.307 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.006, 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 k6z4VPuWr0OF; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 10:44:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 56F901A1BDF; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 10:44:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FD77BDD0; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 18:44:19 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MOn1vb-VropJ; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 18:44:17 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [172.25.1.31] (rrcs-67-52-140-5.west.biz.rr.com [67.52.140.5]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E7DCEBDF9; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 18:44:15 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1456253057; bh=o0/acfKeHez/CelNBi8pX15ZTJfMMd54Oo/Gq+TX5MU=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=XWw1QsPyQBIYo9iDt87IqxjiVyeBxktyhLk5PWIpDtPhQzjMRnhZTDl6qSYOPYfVC TuSSnS1vHoubz7lK8x1hGZ8KwWOg+ZQcGMEeXIFSpJCXySlJ6ILw3DaTxJ5UL53NtM AtQE9r31LMwYgmtSp0BdECVXC93QcbayLXbKUzGs=
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>, 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> <56CCA6A8.3030305@si6networks.com>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <56CCA87E.8040409@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 18:44:14 +0000
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: <56CCA6A8.3030305@si6networks.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms000603020909060709090704"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/n781SQOKHXtveVe_kletnOhUOEY>
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 18:44:22 -0000

Hiya,

On 23/02/16 18:36, Fernando Gont wrote:
> 
> 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)

In theory, yes. I don't find it to be something that I'd prioritise
myself. I suspect attempts to "fix" this would open a can of worms
about the general semantics of relationships between RFCs and would
likely end up being very hard to get done, and with not much benefit
at the end.

S.