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

"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Fri, 12 February 2016 20:47 UTC

Return-Path: <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.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 A726C1A89E9; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 12:47:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 TQ3mwri0TJQA; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 12:47:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.184.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 12A001A89E1; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 12:47:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id u1CKlh2d007197; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 13:47:43 -0700
Received: from XCH-BLV-505.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch-blv-505.nw.nos.boeing.com [130.247.25.195]) by phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id u1CKlcdM007149 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=OK); Fri, 12 Feb 2016 13:47:39 -0700
Received: from XCH-BLV-105.nw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.5.221]) by XCH-BLV-505.nw.nos.boeing.com ([169.254.5.220]) with mapi id 14.03.0235.001; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 12:47:37 -0800
From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: =?iso-2022-jp?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile-06.txt> (Anonymity profile for DHCP clients) to Proposed Standard
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile-06.txt> (Anonymity profile for DHCP clients) to Proposed Standard
Thread-Index: AQHRZctBgE9kBkyHpEOuEoRx/lWCxp8o3/xA
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 20:47:36 +0000
Message-ID: <2134F8430051B64F815C691A62D983183396786F@XCH-BLV-105.nw.nos.boeing.com>
References: <20160201142413.30288.23248.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAJE_bqc8asj-i4FkzT2Oc-=atZasAr1cCDUpdNaJ_wOwkRcm1A@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJE_bqc8asj-i4FkzT2Oc-=atZasAr1cCDUpdNaJ_wOwkRcm1A@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [130.247.104.6]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/smhd0G4Mx9t-8yv7p896UICNYys>
Cc: "dhc-chairs@ietf.org" <dhc-chairs@ietf.org>, IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile@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: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 20:47:45 -0000

Hi,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcwg [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of ????
> Sent: Friday, February 12, 2016 11:26 AM
> To: ietf@ietf.org
> Cc: draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile@ietf.org; dhc-chairs@ietf.org; Bernie Volz (volz); IETF-Announce; dhcwg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile-06.txt> (Anonymity profile for DHCP clients) to Proposed Standard
> 
> On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 6:24 AM, The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> > The IESG has received a request from the Dynamic Host Configuration WG
> > (dhc) to consider the following document:
> > - 'Anonymity profile for DHCP clients'
> >   <draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile-06.txt> as Proposed Standard
> >
> > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
> > ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-02-15. Exceptionally, comments may be
> > sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
> > beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> 
> Brian Carpenter called for an attention to Section 4.5.2 of the draft:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/J_SnGxd2JunlpOeL4JprV03UA7s
> 
> so I'm responding to it.
> 
> 4.5.2.  Prefix delegation
> 
>    The interaction between prefix delegation and anonymity require
>    further study.  For now, the simple solution is to avoid using prefix
>    delegation when striving for anonymity.  When using the anonymity
>    profiles, clients SHOULD NOT use IA_PD, the prefix delegation form of
>    address assignment.
> 
> 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?

I don't have a strong opinion on the "SHOULD NOT" in this paragraph, but
it is very important that this guidance not be taken out of context. This
document is only about clients that wish to remain anonymous, which
does not apply to all use cases.

Thanks - Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com
 
> --
> JINMEI, Tatuya
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg