On Mon, Feb 1, 2016 at 6:24 AM, The IESG <iesg-secretary(_at_)ietf(_dot_)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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org mailing lists by 2016-02-15. Exceptionally, comments
may be
sent to iesg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)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?
--
JINMEI, Tatuya