[dhcwg] Revised charter

Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com> Fri, 09 April 2004 00:04 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA13036 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Apr 2004 20:04:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BBjUu-0000oc-Fw for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 20:03:52 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3903qax003130 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 8 Apr 2004 20:03:52 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BBjUu-0000oP-CT for dhcwg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 20:03:52 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA12908 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Apr 2004 20:03:50 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BBjUr-0000Wb-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 20:03:49 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BBido-0001rV-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 19:09:01 -0400
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BBhke-0003OO-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 18:12:00 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BBhkf-0002Yr-4L; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 18:12:01 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BBhkE-0002Sq-SU for dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 18:11:34 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA00842 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Apr 2004 18:11:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BBhkB-0003JJ-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 18:11:31 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BBfft-0002Kg-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 15:59:02 -0400
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BBCZv-0000m2-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Apr 2004 08:54:51 -0400
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (64.102.124.13) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Apr 2004 05:51:46 -0700
X-BrightmailFiltered: true
Received: from flask.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@flask.cisco.com [161.44.122.62]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i37CsJCC022856 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 7 Apr 2004 08:54:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from rdroms-w2k01.cisco.com (che-vpn-cluster-2-8.cisco.com [10.86.242.8]) by flask.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.6-GR) with ESMTP id AHK59049; Wed, 7 Apr 2004 08:54:18 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20040407085147.01f90c68@flask.cisco.com>
X-Sender: rdroms@flask.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 08:53:58 -0400
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: [dhcwg] Revised charter
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,NEW_DOMAIN_EXTENSIONS autolearn=no version=2.60

Here is a draft charter for the WG, based on discussion at the WG meeting in
Seoul and discussion on the mailing list.  Please review and respond with
comments.

- Ralph

dhc WG draft revised charter
----------------------------

The dhc working group (DHC WG) has developed DHCP for automated
allocation, configuration and management of IP addresses and TCP/IP
protocol stack parameters. DHCPv4 is currently a "Draft Standard" and
is documented in RFC2131 and RFC2132.  DHCPv6 is currently a "Proposed
Standard" and is documented in RFC3315.  Subsequent RFCS document
additional options and other enhancements to the specifications.

The DHC WG is responsible for reviewing (and sometimes developing)
DHCP options or other extensions (for both IPv4 and IPv6). The DHC WG
is expected to review all proposed extensions to DHCP to ensure that
they are consistent with the DHCP specification and other option
formats, that they do not duplicate existing mechanisms, etc. The DHC
WG will not (generally) be responsible for evaluating the semantic
content of proposed options. The DHC WG will not adopt new proposals
for extensions to DHCP as working group documents without first
coordinating with other relevant working groups and determining who
has the responsibility for reviewing the semantic content of an
option.

The DHC WG has the following main objectives:

* The DHC WG will address security in DHCP

   o Develop and document security requirements for DHCP. RFC 3118
     defines current security mechanisms for DHCPv4. Unfortunately, RFC
     3118 has neither been implemented nor deployed to date.  Specific
     issues to be considered include:

     - Improved key management and scalability

     - Security for messages passed between relay agents and servers

     - Threats of DoS attacks through FORCERENEW

     - The increased usage of DHC on unsecured (e.g., wireless) and
       public LANs

     - The need for clients to be able to authenticate servers, without
       simultaneously requiring client authentication by the server.

   o Develop and document a roadmap of any new documents or protocols
     needed to meet the security requirements for DHCP

* Write an analysis of the DHCP specification, including RFC2131,
   RFC2132 and other RFCs defining additional options, which identifies
   ambiguities, contradictory specifications and other obstacles to
   development of interoperable implementations. Recommend a process
   for resolving identified problems and incorporating the resolutions
   into the DHCP specification.

* Hosts that include implementations of both IPv4 and IPv6
   ("dual-stack hosts") may use DHCP to obtain configuration settings
   (including assigned addresses) for both IPv4 and IPv6.  The DHCPv4
   and DHCPv6 specifications (RFC2131, RFC2132, RFC3315 and subsequent
   RFCs) do not explicitly explain how a dual-stack host uses DHCP to
   obtain configuration settings for both IP stacks. The dhc WG will
   assess the requirements for a dual-stack host to use DHCP to obtain
   configuration settings for both IPv4 and IPv6, review alternative
   solutions and select a solution, and develop, review and publish a
   document that defines the chosen solution.

* The DHCPv6 specification in RFC3315 includes a mechanism through
   which clients can obtain other configuration information without
   obtaining an address or addresses.  This mechanisms is sometimes
   called "stateless DHCPv6".  RFC3315 includes no provision for
   notifying DHCPv6 clients using stateless DHCPv6 of changes in the
   configuration information supplied to the client or any
   recommendations as to when a client should obtain possibly updated
   information.  The dhc WG will assess the requirements for informing
   DHCPv6 clients of changes in configuration information, review
   alternative solutions and select a solution, and develop, review and
   publish a specification for the chosen solution.


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg