[ Moderators note: Post was moderated, either because it was posted by
a non-subscriber, or because it was over 20K.
With the massive amount of spam, it is easy to miss and therefore
delete relevant posts by non-subscribers.
Please fix your subscription addresses. ]

I think the main think I at least am asking for is multiple
algorithms. Russ is asking for some analysis based on comments from
Steve Bellovin.

I think we may need to spend some time on this--either in Dallas or a
conference call to make any progress.


I think the primary issue in my mind is whether this mechanism works
at all. Once you figure out a client identifier you can test whether
a particular lease is a particular client. So, while I may not be
able to easily track everyone, this supports targeted tracking fairly
easily.

I don't see a way around that without having shared secrets known by
the DHCP servers. I'm not saying that we should mandate that or
perhaps even that we should support it.



But I'm becoming even more convinced that Steve Bellovin is right and
that we need to understand what problem we're solving here.

I do still feel strongly about the multiple algorithms issue. However
I don't think I'm going to be in a position to understand and
appreciate arguments on that issue until we have a discussion about
what we're trying to accomplish and about what the mechanisms are.

The one argument I explicitly do not accept is the deployed base
argument. This is a new option that is first before the IETF and has
first received cross-area review now. RR types have not even been
assigned. I'm sorry the process has taken a long time. The right fix
for that is to work on process efficiency; I think we are all trying
to do that. I know the DHCP working group has improved a lot recently
and I believe the IESG has as well.

--Sam



--
to unsubscribe send a message to namedroppers-request@ops.ietf.org with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: