Client Link-Layer Address Option in DHCPv6
RFC 6939

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

(Ralph Droms) Yes

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

(Wesley Eddy) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2013-02-25 for -04)
No email
send info
- Section 2 says that "...it can be used along with other
identifiers to associate DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 messages from a
dual stack client." Why would this be needed? (Saying "lawful
intercept" is not a good answer here.) I think it'd be useful
to provide a non-LI reason for why this is useful. 

- Section 7 could usefully note that if IPsec is not used then
anyone who can see packets sent between the relay agent and
server with this option, or anyone who can see a log that
contains this options's value, can probably track the client
in a new way. That'd be a privacy issue so yet again motivates
use of IPsec but also motivates not logging this option value,
or at least considering security and privacy when doing that.

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Barry Leiba No Objection

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2013-03-11)
No email
send info
Thank you for addressing my discuss.

(Sean Turner) No Objection

Comment (2013-02-26 for -04)
No email
send info
s2:  r/For e.g./For example, ;)

s7: I agree with Stephen's point about the need for a new privacy consideration.