Re: [Captive-portals] option 160 conflict

sounds good.  I'll patch that in and upload a -01.

On Fri, 10 Jan 2020 at 16:00, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> wrote:

>
>
> On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 12:19 PM Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Jan 2, 2020, at 6:24 PM, Erik Kline <ek@loon.com> wrote:
> >
> > 111 or 114 pending approval from Apple both seem fine to me.
> >
> >
> > As far as approval, I checked with Dieter who originally registered it,
> and it's fine to use. So, Apple gives approval!
> >
> >
> > I'll add an Appendix C with a brief summary of the 160 polycom
> experience for posterity.
> >
> >
> > Sounds good. And do we just need to update the IANA Considerations to
> ask for 114?
>
> Yup.
>
> I'd think that adding something like the below to the IANA Considerations
> section would work:
>
>
> [RFC Ed: Please remove before publication:
> RFC7710 uses DHCP Code 160 -- unfortunately, it was discovered that this
> option code is already widely used by Polycom (see Appendix C).
> Option 114 (URL) is currently assigned to Apple (RFC3679, Section 3.2.3 -
> Contact: Dieter Siegmund, dieter@apple.com - Reason to recover: Never
> published in an RFC)
> Tommy Pauly (Apple) and Dieter Siegmund confirm that this codepoint hasn't
> been used, and Apple would like to relinquish it for use in CAPPORT.
> Please see thread:
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/captive-portals/TmqQz6Ma_fznD3XbhwkH9m2dB28
> for more background ]
>
> The IANA is requested to update the "BOOTP Vendor Extensions and DHCP
> Options" registry (
> https://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-parameters/bootp-dhcp-parameters.xhtml)
> to:
> Tag: 114
> Name: DHCP Captive-Portal
> Length: N
> Meaning: DHCP Captive-Portal
> Reference: [THIS-RFC]
>
> Tag: 160
> Name: REMOVED/Unassigned
> Length:
> Meaning:
> Reference: [RFC7710][Deprecated].
>
> ——
> Seeing as this is an unusual case, I’ll ask the IANA / Michele nicely how
> this should best be worded / explain the background / ask nicely...
>
> W
>
>
>
> >
> > Best,
> > Tommy
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 at 14:33, Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jan 2, 2020 at 2:29 PM Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > One option we have is to use Code 114, which was reserved for use by
> Apple as a "URL" option. That particular codepoint wasn't ever used, so it
> should be open to be reclaimed as a CAPPORT API URL. Since this is in the
> range below 128, it should be safer to use.
> >>
> >>
> >> I *really* like this idea - the options even contains something that
> >> looks like a URL :-)
> >>
> >> Is there any reason *not* to reuse this? There is a note in RFC 3679
> >> (Unused DHCP Option Codes) saying:
> >>
> >>    Code:              114
> >>    Name:              URL
> >>    Defined in:        (none)
> >>    Contact:           Dieter Siegmund, dieter@apple.com
> >>    Reason to recover: Never published in an RFC
> >>
> >> If this does get resulted for CAPPORT, should we file a Hold For
> >> Document Update errata noting that this is no longer true?
> >>
> >> Thank you Tommy!
> >> W
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Best,
> >> > Tommy
> >> >
> >> > On Dec 23, 2019, at 11:27 AM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi:
> >> >
> >> > OK, good to know. I had thought that there was support for using
> option 160 in implementations as RFC7710 was published in December 2015.
> >> >
> >> > I guess Warren will need to update the bis document to request IANA
> to assign a new DHCPv4 option (replacing 160) because of the potential
> conflict regarding its use – likely it would be useful to give some short
> justification for this (about the conflict). Likely the listing for option
> 160 will need to be something like:
> >> >
> >> > 160         DEPRECATED (see new-option-code) - DHCP Captive-Portal
>        N             DHCP Captive-Portal       [RFC7710]
> >> > 160         Polycom (vendor specific)
> >> >
> >> > It may also be appropriate to request IANA assign 111 (if still
> available) as it has no reported use and is in the original (<128) IANA
> assigned space (as per RFC2132).
> >> >
> >> > BTW: Code 115 (which was listed as used by failover in RFC3679) could
> also be a good choice as I am pretty sure it this was ever used (and if it
> was, it was for failover communication and not normal clients; and that use
> has long been deprecated).
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Bernie
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > From: tpauly@apple.com <tpauly@apple.com>
> >> > Sent: Monday, December 23, 2019 12:58 PM
> >> > To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
> >> > Cc: Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com>; Michael Richardson <
> mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>; captive-portals@ietf.org; Warren Kumari <
> warren@kumari.net>
> >> > Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] option 160 conflict
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Dec 21, 2019, at 7:48 PM, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=
> 40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > 
> >> > On Sat, 21 Dec 2019, 07:53 Bernie Volz (volz), <volz@cisco.com>
> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > 1) It would not really remove the overlap for a long while (until all
> of the clients that used the "old" 160 Capport option are upgraded). So,
> devices will still need to deal with it for a long while.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Do any clients or networks actually implement 160 to mean capport? I
> know that iOS and Android, which seem most interested in this option, do
> not yet.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I am not aware of anything using the option yet. iOS does not use it;
> we used it for interop testing, but that is not in production code.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > If they do not, the right thing to do would be to get a new option
> code, and do so as soon as possible so the implementations that are being
> written this year can immediately start using the new one.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I would also urge that if we want a new code, we allocate it soon so
> that the implementations can quickly test it out and ship the right value.
> >> >
> >> > Tommy
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Captive-portals mailing list
> >> > Captive-portals@ietf.org
> >> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
> >> idea in the first place.
> >> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
> >> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
> >> of pants.
> >>    ---maf
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Captive-portals mailing list
> >> Captive-portals@ietf.org
> >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Captive-portals mailing list
> > Captive-portals@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea
> in the first place.
> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
> pants.
>    ---maf
> --
> I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea
> in the first place.
> This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
> regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
> pants.
>    ---maf
>