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

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Tue, 16 February 2016 18:26 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.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 56F691A90FB; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 10:26:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 h8qytRKIoFqj; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 10:26:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ig0-x233.google.com (mail-ig0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::233]) (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 C7FC81A876B; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 10:25:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ig0-x233.google.com with SMTP id g6so37735939igt.1; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 10:25:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type; bh=k6sHXdUDgWa8mntRvvgxlUn0keHKierozy9u/mutpYU=; b=obxU1O5bwSNCrEKXEfDWdcAA+YZEQvvUxIqPRPx8ulHjkXRc0QTKiP6YonNn+cqIYU f5QeEOYobXNmu7t70nJOjo4FBV1MBF+RYaqlnozNhDbj1bWgfu7mZZwoA9RFibSZDyaT 2cStk1DrurTMnLKS9ljQ84RrRTg20obphImZCtQyHmATGjifj/mwlSKP1aBZX4rOL/EX +jCiKqSyrYnMyCscjnYmU8M6hBpPuMOCKunq1rbBvIphfgxHwB8BKVe6gYbZy0KQX+tm VPSRMeeKOFutpvSxTIDwGxY1+qtG5y3EBstmCJIM5H2GY00UD7nyTRbH41nC4nbRO6aM VoEQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=k6sHXdUDgWa8mntRvvgxlUn0keHKierozy9u/mutpYU=; b=ORhodFTt3Km9OHxRQJHnW5g4LGLQLkEOso5mIEGewd7NiH5MtquOFpv7tvtRbPmDdI n4ELoErr/R10/O8DMdEnzNyy3nN/5TLVCtOrnzhyj1h37b6dvwcnDx7stEFcq3frtbE2 UwAWE1tHrHQM5rlOPUU0XIBLyJR1IZ2BtxFNlXPbZ+scbsXL65GvE3Iau/4HiushC6tn 1gESv+efuvj2fsqbJpDDjA7zix62Wag03WHshYz/9nnPiKktO6jGipt5pZ2kkT8myI99 +yUo9Z770o23ycl6IEHjTXHJkqsVCvnAlPlumI9/7X1umLdx+4ZO+du8o9ed+o9kQdKh tQHA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOS7dp3OU4MwiIpOFLbspI0tR8J05mY+z2eqyJC5YOzlIRXGbhWLcPTIJhiogGFZiENPz2+Gnq0YxDJtew==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.43.226 with SMTP id z2mr1155520igl.78.1455647157140; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 10:25:57 -0800 (PST)
Sender: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com
Received: by 10.107.169.35 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Feb 2016 10:25:57 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <163001d168e5$c9a63ed0$5cf2bc70$@huitema.net>
References: <20160201142413.30288.23248.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAJE_bqc8asj-i4FkzT2Oc-=atZasAr1cCDUpdNaJ_wOwkRcm1A@mail.gmail.com> <163001d168e5$c9a63ed0$5cf2bc70$@huitema.net>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 10:25:57 -0800
X-Google-Sender-Auth: rnhAmZGPhgR9nXGryi54hJVp3mc
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqcnr78u3wnzzf4pj4Sqqs9=o17eVBw_-wa00FefFTVQuA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile-06.txt> (Anonymity profile for DHCP clients) to Proposed Standard
From: =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
To: Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/s05Jyt5FtLxD0j8hIF6GAzY_WcY>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 12:49:55 -0800
Cc: draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile@ietf.org, dhc-chairs@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@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, 16 Feb 2016 18:26:15 -0000

At Tue, 16 Feb 2016 10:13:49 -0800,
"Christian Huitema" <huitema@huitema.net> wrote:

> > I'm not sure what Brian tried to indicate in his message, but at least this
> > section looks vague to me about the rationale for the "SHOULD NOT".  It's
> > not obvious to me how IA_PD is worse than IA_NA in terms of privacy.  Is this
> > a "SHOULD NOT" simply because the "interaction"
> > (is not yet fully understood and) requires further study?
>
> This section was rewritten in draft-07, following the feedback received during IETF last call. Basically, we stopped being lazy and actually did the study. And took a lot of the text that Lorenzo provided.

I didn't intend to make my comment as a blocking issue for the last
call, but just to be clear: The revised section 4.5.2 of rev 07 looks
good to me.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya