Subject: [dhcwg] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-active-leasequery-03: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Jul 2015 16:00:48 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-active-leasequery-03: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-active-leasequery/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

-- general:
I understand this to be a way for a third party to "actively" monitor
client DHCPv6 bindings.  Does that warrant some privacy considerations?

-- section 8.2:
The selection of secure vs insecure mode MAY be administratively
selectable. It seems like there should a stronger requirement for an
administrative option to force secure mode.

---

From: Kim Kinnear <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2015 16:49:38 -0400

Ben,

Thanks for your review.  

Comments on your comments are inline, below:

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-active-leasequery/

	Typically this isn't a "third party", but rather another
	element of a service providers OSS ensemble.  We expect that
	TLS certificates will allow the server to ensure that it is
	only talking to requestors with which it is configured to
	exchange information.  Additionally, in response to Stephen
	Farrell's review, we will be adding text to indicate that an
	administrator SHOULD be able to configure which data elements
	can be returned to a requestor.   So, yes, we have multiple
	levels of controls that can be used to limit the allowed
	requestors and the data exchanged with an allowed requestor.

> administrative option to force secure mode.

	Good idea, we will say that it SHOULD be administratively
	selectable.

	Regards -- Kim

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 2015 17:19:20 -0500

> 	requestors and the data exchanged with an allowed requestor.

The main point of my comment was that I think this draft needs privacy 
considerations. I see you've already agreed to add that in response to 
Stephen's DISCUSS position. If that addresses Stephen's concerns, it 
will almost certainly address mine, Therefore I will defer to the 
results of that conversation.

Thanks!

Ben.

[...]