Re: [dhcwg] FW: dhcwg Digest, Vol 159, Issue 22
Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr> Thu, 27 July 2017 19:54 UTC
Return-Path: <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15A0C12EC1D for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:54:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nwZ9XUE4huoW for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:54:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (givry.fdupont.fr [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:6d55:211:5bff:fe98:d51e]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 135981287A5 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 12:54:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id v6RJbVE4096463; Thu, 27 Jul 2017 21:37:31 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr)
Message-Id: <201707271937.v6RJbVE4096463@givry.fdupont.fr>
From: Francis Dupont <Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr>
To: Srinivasa Rao Nalluri <srinivasa.rao.nalluri@ericsson.com>
cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 26 Jul 2017 06:42:26 -0000. <HE1PR0701MB1914DC2079769AD098E30856DEB90@HE1PR0701MB1914.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 21:37:31 +0200
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/9i_DftsmMDioq1-_2Ec4zG0OkJc>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] FW: dhcwg Digest, Vol 159, Issue 22
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2017 19:54:30 -0000
In your previous mail you wrote: > Thank you for review and comments. Please see my response inline prefixed > with [Srinivas] > > [Srinivas] We already have an RFC that talks about encoding larger content > in DHCPv4 option. So, I mentioned following in section 4. > "Maximum possible value of DHCPv4 "option-len" is 255. > LWM2M-server-certificate MAY be of length more than 255. To accommodate > larger > certificate, DHCP server SHOULD follow encoding as mentioned in > [RFC3396]." => IMHO it is not the best idea, i.e., in place of relying on a complex (and not very deployed) extension it is better to just encourage encodings which don't lead to large options. > - as IKEv2 is over UDP too this problem is addressed in RFC 7296 by > allowing many different "encodings" (currently 15 in the IANA > registry). > > So I am afraid authors just took a good text about certificate transport > (BTW I'd pick the same one so my concern is not about the choice) but missed > to add an additional statement about application. > > I propose: > - add something about the encoding byte so nobody will forget to read > RFC 7296 and for instance put a X.509 certificate as the whole content > [Srinivas] I need a bit more clarity on this comment. Encoding byte is > explained in RFC 7296. It will be same even if we explain in our draft. Is > that ok to repeat details of "cert encoding" byte of section 3.6, RFC7296? > Or > Do you say that option format defined in section 3.2 "DHCPv6 option for > LWM2M server certificate" should include "cert encoding" byte and same > should be explicitly explained in our draft? > I see later makes more sense. => IMHO it is enough to mention the encoding byte but of course the second solution (add the byte in the figure) is both simple and efficient so obviously the best. > - make a few encodings mandatory to support (*) > [Srinivas] I will check what formats/encodings make more sense in LWM2M > deployments and I will add them as mandatory list in next version of draft. => thanks Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr
- [dhcwg] FW: dhcwg Digest, Vol 159, Issue 22 Srinivasa Rao Nalluri
- Re: [dhcwg] FW: dhcwg Digest, Vol 159, Issue 22 Francis Dupont