Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-04 - Respond by Nov 3, 2014

[Sheng Jiang <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Fred,



This seems a misunderstanding of current draft. The current draft does have the client to sign its messages with its own private key. The certificate of client is actually from the public/private key pair of the client. The client sends public key to authorized CA, out of band normally. The returned certificate contains the original client public key. So, the certificate is still paired with the private key of the client. The message is signed by the client's private key. It is verified by the client's public key (containing within the certificate).



Best regards,



Sheng



________________________________
From: dhcwg [[e-mail]] on behalf of Templin, Fred L [[e-mail]]
Sent: 03 November 2014 5:32
To: Bernie Volz (volz); [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-04 - Respond by Nov 3, 2014

Hi Bernie,

OK, I object to the removal of the client’s ability to sign its messages with its own
private key (i.e., so that the server can verify the signature using the client’s
public key). Let’s talk about it at IETF91.

Thanks – Fred
[e-mail]

From: Bernie Volz (volz) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2014 7:58 AM
To: Templin, Fred L; [e-mail]
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-04 - Respond by Nov 3, 2014

Fred:

This document (and its predecessor) have had a long and rocky journey. It would be nice to finally wrap this up and move on.

If you have significant concerns or feel that functionality is not there that is needed (and couldn’t be added later on by a follow-on document), please raise those issues now and on the WG Mailing List – there’s little point in waiting until the WG session.


-          Bernie

From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Sunday, November 02, 2014 8:47 AM
To: Bernie Volz (volz); [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-04 - Respond by Nov 3, 2014

Hi Bernie,

Is there any reason this needs to be finalized before the IETF91 meeting? I am not
100% certain that the document meets my needs in its current form and was hoping
to have discussion on it at the end of my presentation.

Thanks – Fred
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

From: dhcwg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Bernie Volz (volz)
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2014 12:41 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-04 - Respond by Nov 3, 2014

Just a reminder that this WGLC is in progress and feedback is needed by Nov 3.

Please participate and indicate your support, or lack thereof, for this document.


-          Bernie

From: dhcwg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Bernie Volz (volz)
Sent: Sunday, October 26, 2014 6:11 PM
To: [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Subject: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-04 - Respond by Nov 3, 2014


Hi all,



This message starts the (short) DHC working group last call to advance "Secure DHCPv6", draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-04, document as a Standards Track (Proposed Standard) RFC. The authors believe that this version is ready. We had a WGLC earlier (May 2014 for the -02 version) and there were some comments, so this is primarily to assure that those comments were addressed.



The draft is available here:

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-04



Please send your comments by November 3rd, 2014. If you do not feel this document should advance, please state your reasons why.



There are no IPR claims reported at this time.



Tomek is the assigned shepherd for this document.



- Tomek & Bernie