Re: [dhcwg] Last Call: <draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile-06.txt> (Anonymity profile for DHCP clients) to Proposed Standard

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



At Tue, 16 Feb 2016 10:13:49 -0800,
"Christian Huitema" <huitema@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > I'm not sure what Brian tried to indicate in his message, but at least this
> > section looks vague to me about the rationale for the "SHOULD NOT".  It's
> > not obvious to me how IA_PD is worse than IA_NA in terms of privacy.  Is this
> > a "SHOULD NOT" simply because the "interaction"
> > (is not yet fully understood and) requires further study?
>
> This section was rewritten in draft-07, following the feedback received during IETF last call. Basically, we stopped being lazy and actually did the study. And took a lot of the text that Lorenzo provided.

I didn't intend to make my comment as a blocking issue for the last
call, but just to be clear: The revised section 4.5.2 of rev 07 looks
good to me.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya




[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]