Write up for draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile(-05).txt:
NOTE TO AD: The 3 documents (draft-ietf-dhc-dhcp-privacy,
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-privacy, and draft-ietf-dhc-anonymity-profile)
should likely be sent to IETF/IESG together as a package.
(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why
is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in
the title page header?
Standards Track. This is the proper type because this document specifies
a mechanism for DHCP anonymity (v4 and v6) and the more DHCP implementations
that use this approach, the less profiling and tracking will be possible. If
different implementation use different techniques, some profiling and
tracking may still be possible.
(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action"
announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement
contains the following sections:
This document specifies an anonymity profile for DHCP clients to remain
as anonymous as possible on visited networks.
Working Group Summary:
This document is an answer to the privacy considerations raised in
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcp-privacy and draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-privacy with respect
to DHCPv4 and DHCPv6, respectively. The profile provides guidelines on the
composition of DHCP or DHCPv6 requests, designed to minimize disclosure of
This document has had thorough reviews by many interested and
knowledgeable folks (beyond those mentioned in the acknowledgements
section). There were no significant points of difficulty or
controversy with the contents of the document.
Microsoft did a prototype implementation and reported great results (see
Bernie Volz is the document shepherd. Brian Haberman is the responsible AD.
(3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by
the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not
ready for publication, please explain why the document is being
forwarded to the IESG.
I read the document thoroughly several times, and submitted editorial and
technical suggestions to the authors, which they implemented. I believe it
is ready for publication.
(4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or
breadth of the reviews that have been performed?
No, the document has had a good deal of careful review.
(5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from
broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA,
DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the
review that took place.
The WGLC was posted to the perpass mailing list, though no comments were
(6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document
Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she
is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has
concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if
the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still
wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here.
I think the document is good as written, and serves a useful purpose.
(7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR
disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of
BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why?
Yes. However, please see (8).
(8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If
so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR
Yes. One IPR was filed about a month before the WGLC was started. The WGLC
announcement mentioned the IPR. No one raised a concern. The IPR is from
an involved party and its exact impact has not been reviewed.
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others
being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?
There is a strong consensus behind this document and in particular from
very active WG participants (i.e. "DHCP experts").
(10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
(11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this
document. (See http://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the
Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough;
this check needs to be thorough.
No issues or nits reported.
(12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review
criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type
(13) Have all references within this document been identified as
either normative or informative?
Yes, and seems to be done appropriately.
(14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready
for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such
normative references exist, what is the plan for their
(15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC
3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure.
(16) Will publication of this document change the status of any
existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header,
listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the
RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain
why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship
of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this
information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers
(17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA
considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency
with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol
extensions that the document makes are associated with the
appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any
referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that newly created IANA registries include a detailed
specification of the initial contents for the registry, that
allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and
a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see
There are no IANA actions required.
(18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for
future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG
would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new
There are no new IANA registries requested by this draft.
(19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document
Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal
language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc.
There are no such parts to the document.