Re: [dhcwg] DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Configuration

I too, just reviewed this document has have some questions/comments.

I agree with Bernie that it's underspecified, and just pointing to the
other documents is insufficient. There should be enough text in this
document so that a DHC implementor can figure out what to do.

1) It's not clear who sends/uses the options (i.e., the MTS or
   CM). 

2) Its also not clear just what the CM does. Is it being a relay agent
that routes DHC packets from MTA's differently than normal DHC
packets?  Reading between the lines a bit, is the following happening?

a) the CM boots first, and requests (and receives?) sub-options 1 & 2.

b) any DHC request from the MTA goes through the CM (the CM is in
effect a relay agent) and the CM relays the DHC request to the DHC
server it learned in step a). The CM knows when it is relaying a MTA
option because the MTA includes a CCC option.

Is my understanding anywhere near correct at this point? (I have more
questions, but the specific questions depend on whether my
understanding is anywhere near correct at this point).

c) the response from the server to the MTA includes some combination
of the remaining suboptions.

3) There are some kerberos-specfic sub-options here. I wonder if they
   make sense from the kerberos perspective (and will try to find
   someone who can answer). Reason I say this is I'm aware of an older
   kerberos ID that put Realm information into a  DNS RR, and the
   realm field was NOT the same as an FQDN (as this ID says it will
   be)

4) Options 4 & 5 don't make sense to me immediately. Why would the MTA
   need special DNS servers (as opposed to just using the ones through
   it's ISP?) And, why can't the normal DNS server option be used
   here? If the MTA's DHC requests get routed to the TSP-specific DHC
   server, it can know to return an appropriate DNS server. Why is a
   special suboption needed? 

5) I find it odd that there are retransmission controlling timer
   settings being communicated via DHC. Is there something broken in
   Kerberos that requires that standard values be overridden?

Thomas   

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