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

Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Tue, 23 February 2016 12:47 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 11C951AC3F4 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 04:47:30 -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 hkZYt5FUYyLS for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 04:47:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yw0-x235.google.com (mail-yw0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c05::235]) (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 C90491A88C1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 04:47:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-yw0-x235.google.com with SMTP id h129so145022689ywb.1 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 04:47:23 -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=ttqySEVE4gnVEC6kLK42jy5njM0eM3DAFr+aiutPzg4=; b=V+sdVTPyb0a7azSvaBNfeOJqKwmvVFrwQPQINdc/cfWcekyZ3T41pnYXJdW9NA/+eo E8kkuQBxjNC0Sqi/d+4cWRNjQnnrREWnsK+nSTcHo+ZJervnESaEkmEBKa9wJCIS8NIN t+x6ClU63t4CWA8U/3LhupKma/CoaS6iS9PIf+i9OTtw/I2Uivu7IwufCh/WMk0HcKAd IO//Ipb8o2YLI6Fgh1pmzmkbuoMPGR+JmeAAMEjq9lAIuVSyKfHlp+BANKQe73X2uddX u4ZgDPKDF6XO+WunMCQnkWlAvDFEjK9KkrtaxOJOAOMOBErNnXcg/lvAJ3BIhIrsCjLE UQbA==
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=ttqySEVE4gnVEC6kLK42jy5njM0eM3DAFr+aiutPzg4=; b=bvM/DtOAc/aZQOIDDdU6Svygyb88ymALACx1X+1yuojbVRR+Cpxcevmbm/Cm9Dguoj TYTVjghFGWHhRAls+wSSy7J2XyShgLqCLiJ7lcnMlomLnBPJlzdfxeKqInwM9bOKIqQR IzytwdF26udq5647OLwOxRWEF4Vc/dhsf2Lve6c4p2ob4uhA2Vinwa5ZJTZV9/vEudBC qCNZ+yPeGPFuBCQWYvw7V1EjcoZKLjTtEBYavXMRyFjDr6+5+WlbOZGpfO2utXmR/d7x cHs3p8VlCTTGaRJ20qkYo38O5lpflpH2j/EVN+8t5fe96fTzX34jXI323XBMXwfHKf7S nBZQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOSUx12B4mWuxYL9Z1xFT+MKqTtWGzIl+otRejdw8K1t1ij6kT44dugJNjPFGo055uYJJ26wboXn02bF6FN8
X-Received: by 10.129.41.150 with SMTP id p144mr18305193ywp.123.1456231643057; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 04:47:23 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.37.19.65 with HTTP; Tue, 23 Feb 2016 04:47:03 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <56CC3D31.6000403@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> <019301d16e1d$979ed1d0$c6dc7570$@huitema.net> <56CC3D31.6000403@si6networks.com>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 2016 21:47:03 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr0Q6ge2qOFJ1o90mwdLr3mYEQF6uiy6=xUEgpLr-0cC_g@mail.gmail.com>
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>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11421f00cc150b052c6f5905
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/z9SCooApZ-X5_h9Gt4MEb2h9xAo>
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 12:47:30 -0000

On Tue, Feb 23, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
wrote:

> That's actually the contrary of what the specs say today: if M=1 you do
> DHCPv6, not SLAAC.
>

I don't see any statement in 4861 that says that. Per 4861, M=1 means
"DHCPv6 is available", not "nodes should do DHCPv6". Relevant text:

      M              1-bit "Managed address configuration" flag.  When
                     set, it indicates that addresses are available via
                     Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol [DHCPv6].