On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 9:29 PM, Brian Haberman
<brian(_at_)innovationslab(_dot_)net>
wrote:
Well, section 4 of draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile-07 says:
The choice between the stateful and stateless scenarios depends on
flag and prefix options published by the "Router Advertisement"
messages of local routers, as specified in [RFC4861]. When these
options enable stateless address configuration hosts using the
anonymity profile SHOULD choose it over stateful address
configuration, because stateless configuration requires fewer
information disclosures than stateful configuration.
That seems pretty close from what you want, at least as far as "stateful
DHCPv6" is concerned.
I would agree that the above text covers what I interpret as Lorenzo's
concern.
My concern is not with the intent, it's with the wording.
The business of this draft is to provide guidance to implementers. I am an
implementer: I wrote the DHCP client currently used in a host OS, and while
said OS does not yet support DHCPv6, I am likely to involved with that as
well if/when that happens. So I am squarely in the target audience for this
document - but as has become clear from this thread, I did not understand
the text correctly, even though I was actually paying attention It took a
specific response from Christian and an explanation from a colleague before
I actually understood what the implications were for host behaviour. We
should try to ensure other implementers do not misunderstand the text like
I did, by making it clearer.
Let me suggest text again:
When these options enable stateless address configuration (i.e., when
the A flag in a Prefix Information Option is set to 1) hosts using the
anonymity profile SHOULD perform stateless address configuration
and SHOULD NOT use stateful DHCPv6, because stateless configuration
I don't see how that text is different from the text that's already in the
draft, except it actually provides clear guidance. Why not use it?