Re: [Captive-portals] option 160 conflict

Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 13 January 2020 05:27 UTC

Return-Path: <ek.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF22412004E for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Jan 2020 21:27:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AAoy0lvs727E for <captive-portals@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Jan 2020 21:27:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ed1-x529.google.com (mail-ed1-x529.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::529]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2646F120013 for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Jan 2020 21:27:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ed1-x529.google.com with SMTP id j17so7364141edp.3 for <captive-portals@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Jan 2020 21:27:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=TQdKDUE43FNsMBW6bqRk+hPKKno2uxrLj154uVPSg10=; b=IEWIpK5dLmnC0QVPu4zVPyBcPgZ1aMMFuBlmX3yljHbjX2WLNVuzQGmcp18wSSayaE waqwrrTgucdUXPZKEZSlg9RZg0DiHsFkx2hCpYiV36uzk8Le4PVgrG17oWt+x4d0HNDe /xS3Bvnd7MDk4o5Q4JVVPuUVThmzNao1W4L8ezhoFEMhKocBqUOLWix1TzAGDhffscku 0B/k5LacQw/+B0RX2agASedgZNdLYBRuEPndbt+1Yuync12CIIBjcJOS8BrVWUrCK5IS 3z++Unh0oZx0mkw9Fa1ZiWDA50gTg3W3M1fShaqhNfbczTeV+B+sLklErr9OqLljrWDH nT8g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=TQdKDUE43FNsMBW6bqRk+hPKKno2uxrLj154uVPSg10=; b=sIU4UnSMuExkpUovLGIUyLZA8YDYe77qhgLZcZ02ripYH1U6sqhyRPMF6Vi2flDEhc wqO/Iyr7PNL43WR14U88kgESpJKrWCVnCvD7WQpOBSbSBqSJuaTVYCEABIMwxRhkO+BV m7tMltcK6Hax/mC0pTwrSlxipYxAUwmziWYWpRQtBXq03Ya6O2wzGrgR050sXNareSxF 7JW5pjDeAVBAhhU2oAtSHcHe01zM6LpnAw7MRemi4+ixrtQ5yGc1+X4qrg0oXAOmLRW6 EBPcyN1kKzRcWZyq5uVh0EEQpczYCOpuMbLBWayDZaibqH385SApGpC+unylbJmwADlv cNaA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAX+OBt47C60bAWFTf7qmEM0WXOEktu8PRH/DVSarWC+9UHCcrBG jqxdY/xYIr2ItbUrtR0kPj0GGspVKrd9AS44sFXiLw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx9OqdnrFz2cw14dpdxLi04wMhCoXPBhUUnthUR0SpYBVGOlExXRBsoCsct8t/Y22ODK6FvEI87v2srFDLG1yQ=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:1777:: with SMTP id da23mr15191617edb.292.1578893222713; Sun, 12 Jan 2020 21:27:02 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAKD1Yr2yvqqw=APnyAb=gygR5KK6U7tcx3STGa9e6a8kJYO03w@mail.gmail.com> <150E4F32-236A-4D59-B74C-36BF523DCE55@apple.com> <DM6PR11MB413791A02517F481815C5353CF2E0@DM6PR11MB4137.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <8B5AF256-342B-4F7C-B5AE-6C3904DFB0DA@apple.com> <CAHw9_iJrtGY=qUFngb=epJuLxrwfryv5peD=wx=2GL-ScV3kFw@mail.gmail.com> <CAAedzxqhtYUv9hX8FqnnGT6T22Oa4=pSx_BFgyhxK-mQw9VDig@mail.gmail.com> <67A25A2A-04FF-4A1D-B0B5-F0CE14E15FC0@apple.com> <CAHw9_iK_wv_qSj7sKV8c2aF8VjEz4JuEQBjGE2w2qNK4DZA2VA@mail.gmail.com> <CAAedzxpZJYyzQedVL47Bm2JsZbshDc596hJFjP4P_F2RG0EbfA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAAedzxpZJYyzQedVL47Bm2JsZbshDc596hJFjP4P_F2RG0EbfA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Jan 2020 21:26:50 -0800
Message-ID: <CAMGpriVEPFxYb=u5--XFiLVCuHuiFBob8E6QX8KzVDU3QJ0n-w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Cc: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>, "captive-portals@ietf.org" <captive-portals@ietf.org>, Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>, Tommy Pauly <tpauly@apple.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ad9d09059bfeb962"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/captive-portals/t-XCaix92yD5BnckFqWtT_mdznk>
Subject: Re: [Captive-portals] option 160 conflict
X-BeenThere: captive-portals@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of issues related to captive portals <captive-portals.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/captive-portals>, <mailto:captive-portals-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/captive-portals/>
List-Post: <mailto:captive-portals@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:captive-portals-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals>, <mailto:captive-portals-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2020 05:27:07 -0000

-01 uploaded.

On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 4:12 PM Erik Kline <ek@loon.com> wrote:

> 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>om>; Michael Richardson <
>> mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>gt;; 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Captive-portals mailing list
> Captive-portals@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/captive-portals
>