On 15.02.2016 23:10, Robert Sparks wrote:
On 2/15/16 3:37 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
Perhaps we should get away from whether something is easy or difficult
to implement or whether the algorithm may be more (or less) efficient.
I think the point of this material is to ENCOURAGE random assignment
rather than sequential to improve privacy- so keep it at that. Let
implementers worry about how efficient an algorithm is?
Right - that's where I'm trying to get the document to go.
This document doesn't encourage anything. It's an analysis and that is
clearly stated in the abstract. Anyway, it seems that people prefer the
performance text to disappear, so it's now gone.
In fact, this topic may be a material for another draft altogether.
Those two drafts (dhcp-privacy and dhcpv6-privacy) analysed the
situation mostly from the client perspective and dhc-anonymity-profile
attempts to address the issues raised on the client side. The whole
paragraph about allocation strategy is just an attempt to cover aspects
that, while implemented on the server side, still affect the client. I
suppose we could consider a draft that would provide similar
recommendations for privacy conscious DHCP server. It's not immediately
clear whether there's enough topics for a separate draft, but this
remains to be seen.
Anyway, I just uploaded -04 that hopefully is acceptable. It does not
contain the performance discussion. The direct link is:
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-privacy-04.txt
Tomek