Re: Preliminary notes from WG meeting in Memphis

Ralph Droms <> Thu, 17 April 1997 10:53 UTC

Received: from cnri by id aa25276; 17 Apr 97 6:53 EDT
Received: from by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa07464; 17 Apr 97 6:53 EDT
Received: from by; (5.65v3.2/ id AA31252; Thu, 17 Apr 1997 06:44:37 -0400
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 06:44:37 -0400
Message-Id: <v02130509af7ba7aefd36@[]>
Precedence: bulk
From: Ralph Droms <>
To: Multiple recipients of list <>
Subject: Re: Preliminary notes from WG meeting in Memphis
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Discussion of DHCP for IPv4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0

At 2:06 PM 4/12/97, wrote:
>>* DHCPv6 (dhc-dhcpv6-09.txt, dhc-v6exts-05.txt)
>>                                             - current drafts need further
>>  editorial review and clarification; serious concerns about security
>>  raised by WG; v6 docs also need to reflect current v4 operational
>>  experience (esp. wrt multiple servers)
>The strategy agreed to at the DHCPv6 session was:
>We will fix editorial legacy parts missed in DHCPv6 spec.  That will
>move to IETF Last Call.  If the IESG and IETF find no other issues Jeff
>Schiller will permit it to move to PS as we promised to add key
>selection to our v6-exts draft.   Charlie and I should have a fix for
>the ext draft shortly.

OK.  At the time of the WG meeting your meeting with Jeff had not taken
place.  The meeting notes will reflect Jeff's concerns in the meeting; how
about "Jeff Schiller expressed concern about security issues - Jim Bound
and Charlie
Perkins will review those issues with Jeff"?

>What "exactly/precisely" does the last statement mean "v6 docs need to
>reflect current v4 operational experience"...  I don't recall that
>discussion at the DHCPv6 meeting.

There is experience with DHCPv4 that indicates specific features in DHCPv4
may make the development of a server-server protocol more difficult.  Put
another way, if we had known some details about server-server interactions,
some minor changes in the DHCPv4 protocol would have made the server-server
protocol much easier to specify.  The last statement reflects that concern.

- Ralph