RE: [dhcwg] DHC WG charter

Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com> Tue, 15 October 2002 13:10 UTC

Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA00301 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 09:10:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g9FDC4E14112 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 09:12:04 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g9FDC4v14109 for <dhcwg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 09:12:04 -0400
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA00219 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 09:09:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g9FD9ov14032; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 09:09:50 -0400
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g9FD6rv13397 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 09:06:53 -0400
Received: from funnel.cisco.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA29888 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 09:04:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from rdroms-w2k.cisco.com (rtp-vpn2-814.cisco.com [10.82.243.46]) by funnel.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id JAA00650; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 09:06:48 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20021015085328.0392fbd0@funnel.cisco.com>
X-Sender: rdroms@funnel.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 08:55:55 -0400
To: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <Bernie.Volz@am1.ericsson.se>
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] DHC WG charter
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <F9211EC7A7FED4119FD9005004A6C8700AAD912C@eamrcnt723.exu.er icsson.se>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>

At 10:51 AM 10/14/2002 -0500, Bernie Volz (EUD) wrote:

>Ralph:
>
>Some comments:
>
>Regarding:
>* Develop requirements for any new protocols to address threats or
>    other enhancement identified by the threat model and analysis of
>    3118
>
>Can we better qualify "new protocols"? This sounds rather open ended and 
>we don't
>mean to impose on things outside of DHCP. Would this be "new DHCP 
>authentication
>protocols"?

Yes - "new DHPC authentication protocols" is what was intended.  At the 
risk of verbosity, some hint about "using the existing DHCP authentication 
framework (RFC3118) and other existing security protocols (IPsec, etc.)" 
might be appropriate.


>Regarding:
>- Develop extensions to DHCPv6 for prefix delegation, DNS
>    configuration, etc.
>- Determine the requirements for DHC to support the dynamic
>    renumbering of networks using fast path delegation as CPE
>    front end between ISP and Private Networks.
>
>I don't have any issues with including the first - these extensions are very
>important. I'm less certain of the second and not exactly sure if this is 
>part
>of the Prefix Delegation issue or something else.
>
>- Bernie
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ralph Droms [<mailto:rdroms@cisco.com>mailto:rdroms@cisco.com]
>Sent: Friday, October 11, 2002 1:05 PM
>To: dhcwg@ietf.org
>Subject: Re: [dhcwg] DHC WG charter
>
>Here's a revised draft WG charter, with edits based on feedback from
>mailing list discussion.  The primary changes in this revision are:
>
>* Rewrote the authentication charter item to require
>    require development of a threat model and analysis
>    of RFC3118, with suggestions about specific issues
>    to consider in the analysis.  Added separate charter
>    item to develop mechanisms to address issues identified
>    by threat model and analysis.
>* Deleted references to specific options to be published
>    as part of DHCPv6; deleted reference to prefix delegation,
>    DNS configuration (see below for more details)
>* Replaced charter item on acceptance of DHCP as Standard
>    with analysis of problems with current spec that impede
>    development of interoperable implementations.
>
>We need consensus on whether the following charter items should be included
>in the charter:
>
>- Develop extensions to DHCPv6 for prefix delegation, DNS
>    configuration, etc.
>- Determine the requirements for DHC to support the dynamic
>    renumbering of networks using fast path delegation as CPE
>    front end between ISP and Private Networks.
>
>Please reply with comments...
>
>- Ralph
>
>=====
>
>                    Dynamic Host Configuration (dhc)
>
>The working group has the following primary objectives:
>
>* Develop a threat model and analysis of the authentication
>    protection provided by RFC3118; specific issues to be addressed
>    include:
>    - Improved key management and scalability
>    - Security for messages passed between relay agents and servers
>    - Threats of DoS attacks through FORCERENEW
>
>* Develop requirements for any new protocols to address threats or
>    other enhancement identified by the threat model and analysis of
>    3118
>
>* Complete the specification of DHCP for IPv6 (DHCPv6):
>    - Gain acceptance and publication of current Internet Draft as
>      Proposed Standard
>    - Develop and publish specifications for options and other
>      extensions to DHCPv6, including those already published as
>      Internet Drafts
>    - Encourage independent implementations and report on
>      interoperability testing
>    - Revise specification and publish for acceptance as Draft Standard
>      by 10/18/2002
>
>* Write an analysis of the DHCP specification, including RFC2131,
>    RFC2132 and other RFCs defining additional options, which identifies
>    ambiguities, contradictory specifications and other obstacles to
>    development of interoperable implementations.  Recommend a process
>    for resolving identified problems and incorporating the resolutions
>    into the DHCP specification.
>
>* Complete the specification and publish work in progress as
>    standards:
>    - Failover protocol
>    - DHCP/DDNS interaction
>    - SNMP MIB
>    - Host name options
>    - Leasequery
>    - Other client and relay agent options
>
>* Review new options for DHCP, as deemed appropriate by the working
>    group and/or the Internet area directors
>
>_______________________________________________
>dhcwg mailing list
>dhcwg@ietf.org
><https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg 
>

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