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

"Christian Huitema" <huitema@huitema.net> Tue, 23 February 2016 15:34 UTC

Return-Path: <huitema@huitema.net>
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 0C6A41B343C for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 07:34:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=unavailable
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 o5zEFynY2oOU for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 07:34:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xsmtp11.mail2web.com (xsmtp11.mail2web.com [168.144.250.181]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2DF71B3439 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 07:34:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.5.2.12] (helo=xmail02.myhosting.com) by xsmtp11.mail2web.com with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <huitema@huitema.net>) id 1aY9Na-0005xi-Jz for ietf@ietf.org; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 04:36:30 -0500
Received: (qmail 9050 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2016 09:35:37 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO huitema1) (Authenticated-user:_huitema@huitema.net@[90.54.87.107]) (envelope-sender <huitema@huitema.net>) by xmail02.myhosting.com (qmail-ldap-1.03) with ESMTPA for <dhc-chairs@ietf.org>; 23 Feb 2016 09:35:37 -0000
From: "Christian Huitema" <huitema@huitema.net>
To: "'Lorenzo Colitti'" <lorenzo@google.com>, "'Fernando Gont'" <fgont@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> <CAKD1Yr3fA4+vdfUbxxxVvbpy8JRHC8TuKqXHHv6F9HBj2rL=fA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr3fA4+vdfUbxxxVvbpy8JRHC8TuKqXHHv6F9HBj2rL=fA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 01:35:50 -0800
Message-ID: <019301d16e1d$979ed1d0$c6dc7570$@huitema.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 15.0
Thread-Index: AQJtbhbfm6E5go4z/5mQ+0EwmlPxoQJwz8dcAUDZ/DcA/X5PlgGjMnfIAecIhmQCo2YSXwEVLMSWAdKeHuedkzeAEA==
Content-Language: en-us
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile-06.txt> (Anonymity profile for DHCP clients) to Proposed Standard
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/shFKtve08_u17kU2kBAf5Ax_wDg>
Cc: dhc-chairs@ietf.org, dhcwg@ietf.org, 'IETF Discussion' <ietf@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile@ietf.org, iesg@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 15:34:22 -0000

On Monday, February 22, 2016 4:36 PM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
> ...
>> 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.

We actually had an extensive discussion on a related topic, whether to state that the document was "updating RFC 4361." We concluded that no, it wasn't, using precisely the test that Lorenzo mentions. The consensus was that an RFC can only update another one if it replaces some of the original text. You have to be able to say something like "in section X of RFC Y, replace the sentence so and so by this and that," or "add this paragraph." 

-- Christian Huitema