On 15.02.2016 23:10, Robert Sparks wrote: > On 2/15/16 3:37 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote: >> Perhaps we should get away from whether something is easy or difficult >> to implement or whether the algorithm may be more (or less) efficient. >> >> I think the point of this material is to ENCOURAGE random assignment >> rather than sequential to improve privacy- so keep it at that. Let >> implementers worry about how efficient an algorithm is? > Right - that's where I'm trying to get the document to go. This document doesn't encourage anything. It's an analysis and that is clearly stated in the abstract. Anyway, it seems that people prefer the performance text to disappear, so it's now gone. In fact, this topic may be a material for another draft altogether. Those two drafts (dhcp-privacy and dhcpv6-privacy) analysed the situation mostly from the client perspective and dhc-anonymity-profile attempts to address the issues raised on the client side. The whole paragraph about allocation strategy is just an attempt to cover aspects that, while implemented on the server side, still affect the client. I suppose we could consider a draft that would provide similar recommendations for privacy conscious DHCP server. It's not immediately clear whether there's enough topics for a separate draft, but this remains to be seen. Anyway, I just uploaded -04 that hopefully is acceptable. It does not contain the performance discussion. The direct link is: https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-privacy-04.txt Tomek