IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Citing 'draft-ietf-dhc-secdhcpv6' (rfc3315bis)

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Thu, 25 August 2016 19:56 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
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 D325A12B077 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 12:56:30 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 m6ptwN5XkgZl for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 12:56:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x231.google.com (mail-qt0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33A4512B040 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 12:56:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x231.google.com with SMTP id u25so28124554qtb.1 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 12:56:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references :to; bh=CZY9zg+EbeuStZDGnq7D9Uln9yVvGNHH5cB7HyxCl50=; b=I1Aej38WH3A+1fC3ABmVrs4BRCeaCodB1RB3wZ4ixFD6GtU/hn7qGLPqU2LbewdKMA wAzQ8j2+sO090EZy/pULIcpp3ZwhkkkK8j86zohHj2UfUMEVO7oKuCWRiHraC9E/2Pdp fozUmdBLB7mNlBH6KscYRtQVp2VeWIFbigZeyOoiP2W0VogBYTE7l9ew1bKGmnCort4P h4qxexaEakWaSwu9oJUS8j53x3zj7fJcNMAHP/OUMTjPm/3Du2hN0d0SXoqcWifnVcnj 92Y400KfoLGgfs8p5+MyYbIumRSyyudaf0ebqyw3gSIJV/PV/s2LGPIc05pP/e5AMSbw oGQQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=CZY9zg+EbeuStZDGnq7D9Uln9yVvGNHH5cB7HyxCl50=; b=EGp1cOdGmIJKYpNHrLd3KWT4i9HFU6Ml/30GK2c6jv1thuxvvzoYLk+hhp7SO3R858 5I1l1GmlKorSI0XmqYvCrN0jaOZ0+Q2Nf9a0iZmz0YYANNY7pLzMJa5yyxEj+M1SyCdj QXh16sXoJC189JKewoRGdKrktpknPb5dIGwzJlN0w5RzjDQMOUrNBPKJM3NzHwIMt+oR xWIqwVqsQM5qrqnekmuJfcBl3dOA+x3rp2q0PUuyXYFbN7jqZBHrOUfhQAAyUW8f2JU5 Vke0Ss1nev1MsOUN6o14S8J1NE2unSOV42qzYKMu0h2kMAe4qMTaONkFbw7fanFtA0hp cqTw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AE9vXwMaqL5Ble0Y6I5L3sJuTqSYOX1u+VSe2BbZQnNxPIoD+nzR6OEYx/JxpUWVy74M4Q==
X-Received: by 10.200.55.137 with SMTP id d9mr12332372qtc.46.1472154988245; Thu, 25 Aug 2016 12:56:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.20.218] (c-71-233-41-235.hsd1.nh.comcast.net. [71.233.41.235]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 1sm8408339qkj.42.2016.08.25.12.56.26 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 25 Aug 2016 12:56:27 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0121C304-0990-4F22-B569-EB8A646C0305"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.3 \(3124\))
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
In-Reply-To: <f3f1af6232194fb88703237bc55d8be3@XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2016 15:56:25 -0400
Message-Id: <9EE72F8D-6735-41BC-9F8F-579CA6537397@fugue.com>
References: <92dcf2e0cf08452caa5861f7258ea6c5@XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com> <201608121919.u7CJJqcS056876@givry.fdupont.fr> <c5303eef3c124228825f32a40f229107@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <ccaff4d4cb5c4eefb05eee0660c2611c@XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com> <f46aa91e4cfb41b29dd2d8186f5959f8@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <ba1c8ff573d7466b8c437373e05f1023@XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com> <b65e1dd66b634240b3ca164b2c04c20a@XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAJE_bqfb5sxOpkTEXkwZXckKBWof7U1-W6EFzCHk7ijnMjpMMA@mail.gmail.com> <5ec83aaf4e76497aa4b4d465483bdcf5@XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAJE_bqeKqEgLVC2ZZyUCjsrPP5_suRJ8en2NC+g13Q5PyQL1iw@mail.gmail.com> <30c9413c4662476096ef087ac88f6314@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <dc9d2c300d574732a12f7f366f6223c0@XCH15-05-11.nw.nos.boeing.com> <3A5F0B79-8C76-4E82-97E9-FA63657DE6C3@cisco.com> <CAJ3w4NdjgVxvnvuaWjGM=qtOe0qUq4N96fVXsbNrf=YkhiABbQ@mail.gmail.com> <2f45b99b50f84b1280e92ad824e39e26@XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com> <9E9A9543-ECB0-4D99-A00F-1AAD813B6522@fugue.com> <091180442e44490ba451874d1543f814@XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAPt1N1=pD7TBrU_NnuyGz61+CiUVp0JiyLLfMUKTz_dgnO59QQ@mail.gmail.com> <AF387F3E-1B64-4E5D-BAF7-EB5BF3ED1EB4@cisco.com> <55dcbc0cd1484fffa264b18b2fc3322c@XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com> <122453F6-3987-46D4-89EB-84AF99402BC3@cisco.com> <dd827ec92b874ad8a188b17f44392c54@XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com> <438d610f19da4f7aa39fb70a7dc11513@XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com> <2279C5E3-0D51-4631-AFC9-DAF05339D21D@cisco.com> <d6f8ed9bdfc8461aa463e6542269ccda@XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com> <CAPt1N1nTHJm44KR1SBg=ohj8HfKO+yLna+b+95FPocTjcuuwbQ@mail.gmail.com> <f3f1af6232194fb88703237bc55d8be3@XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com>
To: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/GgGUhLCG96cdQXcUhczvvRHGk3A>
Cc: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Citing 'draft-ietf-dhc-secdhcpv6' (rfc3315bis)
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 25 Aug 2016 19:56:31 -0000

On Aug 25, 2016, at 3:53 PM, Templin, Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
> So, is there a way for the relay to include an ORO or something like that to convince
> the server to loop the client-supplied option back in the Relay-Reply message to
> the relay?

We don’t currently specify this behavior, but it could certainly be added as an extension.   Privacy implications would have to be considered, of course, but presumably anything the relay needs to know isn’t private in the context of the relay agent, and of course you can use IPsec to protect the communication between the server and the relay.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email