Dynamic Allocation of Shared IPv4 Addresses
RFC 7618

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.

(Brian Haberman) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

Deborah Brungard No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

Comment (2015-05-28 for -08)
No email
send info
In section 10.1, how could preserving port randomization 
become "less" difficult?Presumably the assigned port 
range will never be larger than "all the ports".

[Fixed in update]

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2015-05-26)
No email
send info
- section 2: s/mediums/media/? I also wondered if cable is
considered shared here or not? (I assume Ethernet and WiFi are
considered shared.)

- What if 1 of N of the devices with that IP operates a server,
how do we ensure that clients of that server talk to the right
one? 

- I have some questions about ports. Can I ask for port 546 or
547? Why is that ever allowed?  Would port 443 be very popular I
wonder?  Can I ask for other well known ports in the hopes of
successful typosquatting sending me traffic?  What if mptcp is
used?

- section 6, step 3: I'm not sure I get how there can be many
DHCPOFFER messages from which to choose (in the nominal case).
Are you envisaging that two DHCP relays/servers on the same
subnet would be handing out different PSIDs? 

- section 6, step 6: Could I "release" ports that had not been
assigned to me? Where's it say to watch out for that.

- section 9: PSID-len - the description of that isn't clear to
me sorry. I've not followed the references though so I assume it
would be if I had. 

- section 10: [I-D.bajko-pripaddrassign] is odd - that was
replaced by stuff that was replaced by stuff that was replaced
by stuff that's still in-work in the dhc wg. I think you need to
explain why you refer to the archaic thing and not the WG
document.

Barry Leiba No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

Comment (2015-05-27 for -07)
No email
send info
I have many of the same questions as Stephen, so I support his discuss and comments.  In particular, I'd like to see text int he security considerations about sending traffic to the wrong host and how that is prevented as well as risks.  Stephen hits on this in his comments and I'd like to see it addressed in the security considerations section.  Since that's the point of the draft (multiple hosts using the same IPs), it is a major consideration.

Alvaro Retana (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2015-05-28 for -08)
No email
send info
The updated text in -08 addresses my concern.

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection