Privacy Considerations for DHCPv6
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-privacy-05

[Ballot comment]
-2:
If this is strictly an analysis with no proposed solution, why does it need 2119 keywords? Actually, I only found one MAY, and that seemed more a statement of fact than a new requirement.

-5.6:
This seems to talk about pervasive monitoring in a very general sense. Can you say something about how that specifically relates to dhcpv6?

[Ballot 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.)

(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-privacy-03.txt, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it's often helpful for a document's IANA Considerations section to remain in place upon publication even if there are no actions, if the authors strongly prefer to remove it, IANA does not object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

Thank you,

Sabrina Tanamal
IANA Specialist
ICANN

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: "IETF-Announce"
CC: dhc-chairs@ietf.org, brian@innovationslab.net, volz@cisco.com, draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-privacy@ietf.org, dhcwg@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (Privacy considerations for DHCPv6) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Dynamic Host Configuration WG
(dhc) to consider the following document:
- 'Privacy considerations for DHCPv6'
  as Informational RFC

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@ietf.org mailing lists by 2016-02-04. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  DHCPv6 is a protocol that is used to provide addressing and
  configuration information to IPv6 hosts.  This document described the
  privacy issues associated with the use of DHCPv6 by the Internet
  users.  It is intended to be an analysis of the present situation and
  doe not propose any solutions.




The file can be obtained via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-privacy/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-privacy/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

Write up for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-privacy(-02).txt:

NOTE TO AD: The 3 documents (draft-ietf-dhc-dhcp-privacy,
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-privacy, and draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile)
should likely be sent to IETF/IESG together as a package.


(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
    Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why
    is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in
    the title page header?

Informational. This is the proper type because this document describes
the privacy issues associated with the use of DHCPv6 (RFC 3315).


(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
    Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement
    Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action"
    announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement
    contains the following sections:

Technical Summary:

This document describes the privacy issues associated with the use of
DHCPv6 (RFC 3315).


Working Group Summary:

This document analyzes the privacy issues associated with the use of
DHCPv6.

Document Quality:

This document has had thorough reviews by many interested and
knowledgeable folks (beyond those mentioned in the acknowledgements
section). There were no significant points of difficulty or
controversy with the contents of the document.

Personnel:

Bernie Volz is the document shepherd. Brian Haberman is the responsible AD.


(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
    the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not
    ready for publication, please explain why the document is being
    forwarded to the IESG.

I read the document thoroughly several times, and submitted editorial and
technical suggestions to the authors, which they implemented. I believe it
is ready for publication.

I did raise one minor issue while doing the shepherd review - see
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/AYYFE3FMt3WO6mVbcDGJq06AmXg
(this would be just to eliminate some text).

I would recommend the authors fix this before the AD sends this document
for IETF/IESG review; but that could include any issues raised by the AD
during his review.


(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
    breadth of the reviews that have been performed?

No, the document has had a good deal of careful review.


(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
    broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA,
    DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the
    review that took place.

The WGLC was posted to the perpass mailing list, though no comments were
received (see
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/perpass/current/msg01911.html).


(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document
    Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director
    and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she
    is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has
    concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if
    the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still
    wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.

I think the document is good as written, and serves a useful purpose.


(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
    disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of
    BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?

Yes.


(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
    so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
    disclosures.

No.


(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
    represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
    being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

There is a strong consensus behind this document and in particular from
very active WG participants (i.e. "DHCP experts").


(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
    discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
    separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
    should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
    publicly available.)

No.


(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
    document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the
    Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough;
    this check needs to be thorough.

The document passes the idnits tool.


(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
    criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type
    reviews.

N/A


(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
    either normative or informative?

Yes.


(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready
    for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such
    normative references exist, what is the plan for their
    completion?

No.


(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC
    3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area
    Director in the Last Call procedure.

No.


(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
    existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header,
    listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the
    RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain
    why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship
    of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this
    information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers
    it unnecessary.

No.


(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA
    considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency
    with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol
    extensions that the document makes are associated with the
    appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any
    referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
    that newly created IANA registries include a detailed
    specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
    allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and
    a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see
    RFC 5226).

There are no IANA actions required.


(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for
    future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG
    would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new
    registries.

There are no new IANA registries requested by this draft.


(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
    Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
    language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.

There are no such parts to the document.

Hi all,

This message starts the DHC Working Group Last Call to advance draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-privacy-01, Privacy considerations for DHCPv6, http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-privacy-01. This document’s intended status is Informational. At present, there is no IPR file against this document.

This is a part of the WGLC of 3 documents (draft-ietf-dhc-dhcp-privacy-01,  draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-privacy-01, and draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile-03).

Please send your comments by September 22th, 2015. If you do not feel this  document should advance, please state your reasons why.

Bernie Volz is the assigned shepherd.

- Tomek & Bernie