Subject: [dhcwg] Warren Kumari's No Objection on draft-ietf-dhc-mac-assign-07: (with COMMENT)

From: Warren Kumari via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2020 13:43:50 -0700

Warren Kumari has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dhc-mac-assign-07: 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-mac-assign/

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

[ Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS, I've cleared.]

Thank you for writing this -- I *do* like this document, and agree that it
solves a real problem (e.g:
http://grouper.ieee.org/groups/802/PrivRecsg/email/msg00164.html ), but would
like to make sure that it is deployable without causing sadness...

I think it would be useful to also add some text around policy limits / DoS.
As examples, would you expect that this would be enabled on "regular" user
interfaces (e.g at my local coffee shop), or is it more designed for
datacenters and IoT VLANs? Either way, should a device be able to ask for
00:00:00:00:00:01 and 2^48-2 addresses? The document does say things like: "In
particular, the server may send a different starting address than requested, or
grant a smaller number of addresses than requested.", but it might be nice to
also include something like "implementations should allow configuration of the
maximum number of addresses to allocate" or something similar (yes, an attacker
could keep coming back and looking like a new device, but...)