RE: [dhcwg] Items of the new wg charter

At 04:48 AM 9/12/2002, BINET David FTRD/DMI/CAE wrote:

>The topic "new environments where DHCP can be deployed" has to be
>discussed in a wg at the IETF.

This seems appropriate to include in the Charter discussion.
My view is just a little different: the DHC WG need not go looking 
for new environments for DHCP, but any new technology that expects
to become Internet-Standard should consider using it as part of the
normal environment.

>I do not know if it should be discussed in PANA, DHCP or other working
>group. When I read the PANA wg charter, I do not see any relationship
>between PANA activities and DHCP activities except that PANA protocol
>must not interfere with DHCP. Moreover, I believe that PANA working
>group asserts that host must have an IP address before using PANA
>protocol (please, tell me if I am wrong).

You are not wrong. The scope for PANA is authentication after IP
access is established. There are other mechanisms, such as EAP, that
operate over layer-2 prior to dynamic configuration of hosts (IP addr).
The EAP WG is revising its definition to cover much more than PPP.

>In some contexts, for example xDSL access, I do not think that DHCP
>clients will have an IP address before connecting but there is a strong
>need for authentication before the client will receive configuration
>parameters from the server. 
>Even if PANA working group deals with this issue, DHCP working group has
>to take this need into consideration in order to make the new PANA
>protocol compliant with DHCP protocol.

This really should work the other way, the DHC WG is not supposed to 
enforce compliance (or even compatibility - which is what I suspect you
intended) of new protocols with its specifications. New protocols should
avoid breaking operations that use standards-track protocols like DHCP.

Some degree of coordination between layer-2 authentication (prior to 
IP address assignment) and DHCP is provided by mechanisms like the relay
of RADIUS attributes from layer-2 authenticators into DHCP.
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-agentopt-radius-00.txt

The DHC WG has been receptive to proposals for specific forms of coordination, as indicated by its adoption of this effort. It is reasonable to expect that it would be as receptive to specific proposals for any "new environments where DHCP can be deployed".

John

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