Re: [dhcwg] PKIX WG new I-D draft: DHCP section review

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Wed, 10 December 2008 03:06 UTC

Return-Path: <dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: dhcwg-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DF8C3A68D3; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 19:06:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC9F13A68D3 for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 19:06:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id p9zrqQNkxPYa for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 19:06:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rtp-iport-1.cisco.com (rtp-iport-1.cisco.com [64.102.122.148]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE5F13A6806 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 19:06:21 -0800 (PST)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.33,744,1220227200"; d="scan'208";a="30566534"
Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Dec 2008 03:06:15 +0000
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (rtp-core-2.cisco.com [64.102.124.13]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id mBA36F8Q023810; Tue, 9 Dec 2008 22:06:15 -0500
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id mBA36FWC001597; Wed, 10 Dec 2008 03:06:15 GMT
Received: from xmb-rtp-20a.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.15]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 9 Dec 2008 22:06:15 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Tue, 09 Dec 2008 22:05:50 -0500
Message-ID: <8E296595B6471A4689555D5D725EBB2109E4323F@xmb-rtp-20a.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <493D9D81.4090301@Dartmouth.edu>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] PKIX WG new I-D draft: DHCP section review
Thread-Index: AclZgx5Mqqi86VN2TH+29WBJrvGlHgA7/ZBg
References: <4935915E.1060708@Dartmouth.edu><F32C8732-944D-4DB4-9E39-FF4430973C1A@nominum.com><A29FB4BE-EDEC-4BD8-B2A4-DE340BAB6A84@cisco.com><493D5B77.1050708@Dartmouth.edu><52028AF8-6F1E-430A-8A52-19ECEE1ADDD6@cisco.com> <493D9D81.4090301@Dartmouth.edu>
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: Massimiliano Pala <Massimiliano.Pala@Dartmouth.edu>, "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" <rdroms@cisco.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Dec 2008 03:06:15.0735 (UTC) FILETIME=[43D29470:01C95A74]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=2117; t=1228878375; x=1229742375; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=volz@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Bernie=20Volz=20(volz)=22=20<volz@cisco.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[dhcwg]=20PKIX=20WG=20new=20I-D=20draft =3A=20DHCP=20section=20review |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Massimiliano=20Pala=22=20<Massimiliano.Pala@Dartm outh.edu>,=0A=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=22Ralph=20Droms=20(rdr oms)=22=20<rdroms@cisco.com>; bh=z8J/s/5N4g3ZJhX685Yt3cpPzJ0x3YYhTLYZkVAQBGw=; b=z4ZYpV8bTcKa0DE9b8//h7hYCKBP0KVWQPHCylBuvk2o3dwgNcyMQUBLPf ckLv05grbbSBm2O35px5kSSubDWWk9lyhM4gVkIHCkXVO9MZBQX3OqKfsOxw qPIdnbyQc0;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=volz@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; );
Cc: DHC-WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Damien Neil <Damien.Neil@nominum.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] PKIX WG new I-D draft: DHCP section review
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/dhcwg>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org

While the DHCP(v4+v6) option definitions are now much better (in 02), I
wonder whether this will fly.

Can new options be defined in an Appendix of an RFC?

There's no IANA directives in the draft to request IANA to assign codes
for these options? In fact:

5.  IANA Considerations

   This document has no actions for IANA.

Which is clearly wrong if new DHCP options are to be assigned?

Also, while DHCPv6 has plenty of "available" option numbers, DHCPv4
doesn't have as many. I wonder whether if this is truly experimental,
that a Vendor Specific Information Option (for both v4 + v6) might not
be better? You would need to get an Enterprise-ID if you don't already
have one. If all depends on how widely this is to be implemented (ie,
how experimental is it?).

If 'real' IANA assigned options are desired, the Appendix/IANA
cosniderations issues are more likely for the AD to address? Or you
might want to see what other Experimental RFCs have done in terms of new
definitions for IANA maintained registries.

- Bernie 

-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf
Of Massimiliano Pala
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 5:20 PM
To: Ralph Droms (rdroms)
Cc: DHC-WG; Damien Neil
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] PKIX WG new I-D draft: DHCP section review

Hi Ralph,

that was kinda not clear to me - I thought that I did not need to define
two different options for DHCPv4 and DHCPv6. I just uploaded the new
version
of the draft where I defined the PRQP server option for DHCPv4 and
DHCPv6.

The new draft is published as:

    http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pkix-prqp-02.txt

Please let me know what you think of this new version and if I
successfully
addressed your concerns :D

Cheers,
Max

Ralph Droms wrote:
> You could choose either IP addresses or FQDNs for the option payload.

> But, you'll still have to define both DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 versions of
the 
> option.
> 
> You might want to look at 
>
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines-03.
txt

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg