Subject: [dhcwg] Stephen Farrell's Yes on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-privacy-03: (with COMMENT)

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 2016 10:46:13 -0800

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-privacy-03: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-privacy/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

More thanks for this work. Most of my comments ended up
being about the client profile for now.

- DHCPv6: is there really nothing to say about link local
addresses? (I'm not sure how those are used in DHCPv6, if
they are, but they do often contain MACs.)

---

From: Tomek Mrugalski <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:45:31 +0100

> they are, but they do often contain MACs.)
I have just uploaded -04 with a new section 3.1 that is dedicated to the
link local addresses. Technically they're not part of the DHCPv6
protocol, but most of the DHCPv6 traffic is sent from a link local
address. Also, the original source address of a packet is stored in the
Relay-forward message if the traffic is relayed.

Please let me know if the text is sufficient or further clarifications
or corrections are needed.

Thanks for reviewing this draft and your yes vote :)

Tomek

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:36:32 +0000

Hiya,

> or corrections are needed.

Looks good to me, thanks,
S.