[dhcwg] Ben Campbell's No Objection on draft-ietf-dhc-relay-port-08: (with COMMENT)

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dhc-relay-port-08: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-relay-port/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Discussion seems to be moving in the right direction, so I have cleared my
response. I've added it back as a comment for now:

<former-discuss>
(I want to "discuss" the following  DISCUSS point. If the answer is that this
is by design, and the working group thinks that the operational aspects are
reasonable, then I will clear.)

This extension places normative requirements on any upstream server or relay,
which may or may not implement this spec.  It further appears that if you try
to use this extension without that support, things will break. That seems to
require at least an update to the DCHP and DCHPv6 RFCs[1], and some method of
discovery or fallback would be helpful. Section 5.4 discusses this a little
bit, but I think it needs to talk about what to do when things fail. "Turn off
the feature if you don't get DHCP responses" doesn't seem satisfying.

[1] I see 3.1 and 3.2 make changes to 2131 and 3315, so it seems an "UPDATES...
" tag is needed one way or another.

</former-discuss>

-1, last paragraph: It seems like the 2119 keywords here would be better placed
in the later sections about relay and server behavior. I suggest moving them
there, and making the introductory language non-normative.

- 3.1 and 3.2: I am surprised not to see 2119 keywords in the language added to
2131 and 3315:

-8: This spec adds the ability to direct dhcp responses to non-standard ports.
If the working group believes that does not affect the security considerations,
please describe the rational. (I'm not saying that I think there's a problem,
but I think the burden is on the working group to explain why they think there
is not.)