Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-21 - summary

"Templin, Fred L" <> Wed, 19 April 2017 13:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D74912954C; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 06:41:53 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.22
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.22 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lcBXzY733d-8; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 06:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 68FFF1293F4; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 06:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id v3JDfntw009204; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 06:41:50 -0700
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id v3JDffsS009121 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 19 Apr 2017 06:41:41 -0700
Received: from (2002:8988:eede::8988:eede) by (2002:8988:eede::8988:eede) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 06:41:41 -0700
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Wed, 19 Apr 2017 06:41:41 -0700
From: "Templin, Fred L" <>
To: Tomek Mrugalski <>, dhcwg <>
CC: draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6 authors <>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-21 - summary
Thread-Index: AQHSrj/Om2r5zeyMdU24tzLmWNqPBaHMxxkA
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 13:41:40 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-TM-AS-MML: disable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-21 - summary
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2017 13:41:53 -0000


RFC7513 seems to suggest DHCP snooping, i.e., some L2 device on the link from
the DHCP server or relay to the client examines the contents of DHCP messages.
Unfortunately, sedhcpv6 mandates encryption making snooping impossible.

Does it mean that Secure DHCPv6 will be incompatible with SAVI?

Thanks - Fred

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcwg [] On Behalf Of Tomek Mrugalski
> Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2017 12:07 PM
> To: dhcwg <>
> Cc: draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6 authors <>
> Subject: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-21 - summary
> It took a little bit more than planned, but the extra time gave us a
> couple more comments.
> We did receive a number of in depth reviews with technical comments. In
> general, several people praised the significantly improved quality and
> clarity of the document. Nobody said that is opposed to this work. So
> from that perspective this last call is a success.
> However, both chair and at least one co-author feel that an important
> concern has not been addressed yet. There currently are no known
> implementations or prototypes of this draft. For a typical DHCP draft
> that adds an option or two that would probably be fine, but for this
> particular draft it is not. For two reasons: First, we feel that this is
> an essential piece of the whole DHCPv6 ecosystem and as such require
> much more scrutiny then an average draft. Second, security is a complex
> matter and any unclear aspects would gravely damage the
> interoperability. Jinmei had put it well: "I suspect the current spec
> still has some points that are critically unclear, which you would
> immediately notice once you tried to implement it."
> Given that, we declare that more effort is needed before this work is
> deemed ready for IESG. At the same time, chairs would like to strongly
> applaud authors' efforts to improve this work. This version is
> significantly better than its predecessors. Thank you for your hard
> work. You are doing excellent work. Please continue.
> Also, to address the concern of missing implementations, chairs would
> like to announce a DHCP hackathon in Prague. Details are TBD, but the
> primary goal will be to have at least two independent implementations of
> that draft. The hackathon will take place the weekend before IETF
> meeting (that's July 15-16). A separate announcement will be sent soon.
> That is well over 3 months away. Authors and supporters of this work,
> please seriously consider dedicating some of your time implementing
> prototypes and attending the hackathon, if you can. If you can't we will
> organize some means for participating remotely.
> Thank you to the authors and to everyone who commented.
> Bernie & Tomek
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list