IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Mon, 22 February 2016 06:33 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 CC3021B3593 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Feb 2016 22:33:16 -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 6oGP_l_Feez3 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 21 Feb 2016 22:33:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yk0-x22c.google.com (mail-yk0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::22c]) (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 BB5F61B3599 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Feb 2016 22:33:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yk0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id z7so57726143yka.3 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 21 Feb 2016 22:33:14 -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=t+qgZsdp5QMZcf8aYIeuUVZkVKaQnt9WKZPJPQm1gxA=; b=CIGI6QZpJ8YsSWVuphOR6wKdcMunqi3wUAG6qZxeVOhlov9zVNsv3QqocvPB3YCiSv rm8r2QY8JBelYsiG3R24ppX5LLWgtf7wRJ5Ldm4U8Y2qH/Wq9lOCjmtlP1cQnmOAz+c0 zdbVQU8WaVBu0MzLDkFRAH0xlJWKBPDLq6QsNDzW28BVMymHIamLs5qzXAMlVKhEptWz S0KTpLsxxcrM2650aZX7GJsHioGhoJIdHoGG3GW0fkpLUo6VOvEAeA4dNUxpRrtVakDd EoAExmSKaKi3Tqu915XtfnjpmbInqTDgSKedRjgfE7PD23S1A3cVbdUPL+67d+DGPzWP 9BDA==
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=t+qgZsdp5QMZcf8aYIeuUVZkVKaQnt9WKZPJPQm1gxA=; b=hghRjfiUUPoDTCIjo7Mf2vF+LRZnshYYjOH0W2paiSTl1exiQgGq3jhJG0IkC6O21K O1/frZjp/UJMJnL+JbxwcDvszswJIIIlAbfBrKr15X2QKd28kIaD3Uh17u9RxzSRckY+ 6OMAQrREVN0ZDLiNFGgC/7cAypsSNYENixBIQlVYTxo4r8N1zHDUiShOOuKy/Cp3Nli8 1vSUslTLJwHcPTZEezaG7G4FRljB2QNBlr79eZYBBheelrPqPbuMp8Q9Uo0+EH6KyO9Y UtSbALSFbyX5ou7FGpyk+1hSTpvsUeI/9deky2IbiBHs+H2bh5ZkT9szT23Hk2xw6V/U SzOQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YORYFhcMhfcJTnOnSSLW+0xUtKuKLD3wif1eFUNevrlQrfXp59CGZym9cRoVumkw/g+VmW3oUmGaAreg4tQE
X-Received: by 10.37.2.150 with SMTP id 144mr10668454ybc.44.1456122793805; Sun, 21 Feb 2016 22:33:13 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.19.65 with HTTP; Sun, 21 Feb 2016 22:32:54 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr15EYQdS3XR4zenqmpBn2K2Zue2a+mMz1m+Vw54ou7zZQ@mail.gmail.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>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 15:32:54 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr1qM24TZSRyqo_vSN9Y7nKsTE=niOPqfW5cuObB0PVKLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile-06.txt> (Anonymity profile for DHCP clients) to Proposed Standard
To: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113d43d0e061f1052c560150"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/p-_rqtuidPI2mWzGVUvYo564j9k>
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: Mon, 22 Feb 2016 06:33:17 -0000

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
wrote:
>
> I don't see how that text is different from the text that's already in the
> draft, except it actually provides clear guidance. Why not use it?
>

Christian pointed out that this text has been revised in -08. When I read
the new text, "When these options enable stateless address configuration
hosts using the anonymity profile SHOULD use stateless address
configuration instead of stateful address configuration", as an implementer
I know what to do. Thank you.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email