Skip to main content

Privacy Considerations for DHCP
RFC 7819

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2016-04-30
05 (System) RFC published
2016-04-26
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc7819">AUTH48-DONE</a> from AUTH48
2016-03-22
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to <a href="http://www.rfc-editor.org/auth48/rfc7819">AUTH48</a> from RFC-EDITOR
2016-03-21
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT
2016-02-23
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2016-02-23
05 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2016-02-22
05 (System) RFC Editor state changed to EDIT
2016-02-22
05 (System) IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent
2016-02-22
05 (System) Announcement was received by RFC Editor
2016-02-22
05 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent
2016-02-22
05 Amy Vezza IESG has approved the document
2016-02-22
05 Amy Vezza Closed "Approve" ballot
2016-02-22
05 Amy Vezza Ballot approval text was generated
2016-02-22
05 Amy Vezza Ballot writeup was changed
2016-02-21
05 Sheng Jiang IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2016-02-21
05 Sheng Jiang New version available: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcp-privacy-05.txt
2016-02-21
04 Gunter Van de Velde Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response'
2016-02-18
04 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation
2016-02-18
04 Benoît Claise [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise
2016-02-18
04 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko
2016-02-18
04 Martin Stiemerling [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling
2016-02-17
04 Amanda Baber IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from Version Changed - Review Needed
2016-02-17
04 Joel Jaeggli [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli
2016-02-17
04 Ben Campbell
[Ballot comment]
If this is strictly an analysis with no proposed solution, why does it need 2119 keywords? Actually, I only found one MAY, and …
[Ballot comment]
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.
2016-02-17
04 Ben Campbell [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Ben Campbell
2016-02-17
04 Alissa Cooper [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Alissa Cooper
2016-02-17
04 Barry Leiba [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba
2016-02-16
04 Terry Manderson [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson
2016-02-16
04 Alvaro Retana [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana
2016-02-16
04 Deborah Brungard [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard
2016-02-15
04 Spencer Dawkins [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins
2016-02-15
04 Stephen Farrell [Ballot comment]

More thanks for this work. Most of my comments ended up
being about the client profile for now.
2016-02-15
04 Stephen Farrell [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell
2016-02-15
04 Brian Haberman Ballot has been issued
2016-02-15
04 Brian Haberman [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Brian Haberman
2016-02-15
04 Brian Haberman Created "Approve" ballot
2016-02-15
04 Brian Haberman Ballot writeup was changed
2016-02-15
04 Brian Haberman IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup::AD Followup
2016-02-14
04 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed
2016-02-14
04 Sheng Jiang IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - No Actions Needed
2016-02-14
04 Sheng Jiang New version available: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcp-privacy-04.txt
2016-02-09
03 Brian Haberman Placed on agenda for telechat - 2016-02-18
2016-02-06
03 Peter Yee Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Issues. Reviewer: Peter Yee.
2016-02-05
03 Brian Haberman IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup::Revised I-D Needed from Waiting for Writeup
2016-02-05
03 Brian Haberman Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown
2016-02-04
03 (System) IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call
2016-01-28
03 (System) IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - No Actions Needed from IANA - Review Needed
2016-01-28
03 Sabrina Tanamal
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

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

We understand that this …
(Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-dhc-dhcp-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
2016-01-28
03 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Issues. Reviewer: Steve Hanna.
2016-01-25
03 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Mehmet Ersue
2016-01-25
03 Gunter Van de Velde Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Mehmet Ersue
2016-01-21
03 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Peter Yee
2016-01-21
03 Jean Mahoney Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Peter Yee
2016-01-21
03 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Steve Hanna
2016-01-21
03 Tero Kivinen Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Steve Hanna
2016-01-21
03 Amy Vezza IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed
2016-01-21
03 Amy Vezza
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: dhc-chairs@ietf.org, brian@innovationslab.net, draft-ietf-dhc-dhcp-privacy@ietf.org, …
The following Last Call announcement was sent out:<br><br>From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: "IETF-Announce" <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
CC: dhc-chairs@ietf.org, brian@innovationslab.net, draft-ietf-dhc-dhcp-privacy@ietf.org, volz@cisco.com, dhcwg@ietf.org
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender: <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
Subject: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dhc-dhcp-privacy-03.txt> (Privacy considerations for DHCPv4) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the Dynamic Host Configuration WG
(dhc) to consider the following document:
- 'Privacy considerations for DHCPv4'
  <draft-ietf-dhc-dhcp-privacy-03.txt> 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


  DHCP is a protocol that is used to provide addressing and
  configuration information to IPv4 hosts.  This document discusses the
  various identifiers used by DHCP and the potential privacy issues.




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

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


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


2016-01-21
03 Amy Vezza IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested
2016-01-21
03 Brian Haberman Last call was requested
2016-01-21
03 Brian Haberman Last call announcement was generated
2016-01-21
03 Brian Haberman Ballot approval text was generated
2016-01-21
03 Brian Haberman Ballot writeup was generated
2016-01-21
03 Brian Haberman IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::Point Raised - writeup needed
2016-01-18
03 Sheng Jiang New version available: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcp-privacy-03.txt
2016-01-15
02 Brian Haberman IESG state changed to AD Evaluation::Point Raised - writeup needed from AD Evaluation
2016-01-13
02 Brian Haberman IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested
2016-01-12
02 Bernie Volz
Write up for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcp-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 …
Write up for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcp-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 DHCPv4 (RFC 2131).


(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
DHCPv4 (RFC 2131).


Working Group Summary:

This document analyzes the privacy issues associated with the use of
DHCPv4.

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.


(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.
2016-01-12
02 Bernie Volz Responsible AD changed to Brian Haberman
2016-01-12
02 Bernie Volz IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead
2016-01-12
02 Bernie Volz IESG state changed to Publication Requested
2016-01-12
02 Bernie Volz IESG process started in state Publication Requested
2016-01-12
02 Bernie Volz Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared.
2016-01-12
02 Bernie Volz Changed document writeup
2016-01-12
02 Bernie Volz Changed document writeup
2015-12-30
02 Sheng Jiang New version available: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcp-privacy-02.txt
2015-10-21
01 Bernie Volz For open issues, see:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/LJ_tGAaqdErbt_s4Ya4-025tTfk
2015-10-21
01 Bernie Volz Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set.
2015-10-21
01 Bernie Volz IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call
2015-10-14
01 (System) Notify list changed from "Bernie Volz" <volz@cisco.com> to (None)
2015-09-02
01 Bernie Volz
Hi all,

This message starts the DHC Working Group Last Call to advance draft-ietf-dhc-dhcp-privacy-01, Privacy considerations for DHCPv4  --  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcp-privacy-01. This document’s intended …
Hi all,

This message starts the DHC Working Group Last Call to advance draft-ietf-dhc-dhcp-privacy-01, Privacy considerations for DHCPv4  --  http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcp-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-01draft-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
2015-09-02
01 Bernie Volz IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document
2015-08-26
01 Tomek Mrugalski New version available: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcp-privacy-01.txt
2015-02-09
00 Bernie Volz Notification list changed to "Bernie Volz" <volz@cisco.com>
2015-02-09
00 Bernie Volz Document shepherd changed to Bernie Volz
2015-02-09
00 Bernie Volz Intended Status changed to Informational from None
2015-02-09
00 Bernie Volz This document now replaces draft-jiang-dhc-dhcp-privacy instead of None
2015-02-09
00 Sheng Jiang New version available: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcp-privacy-00.txt