RE: [dhcwg] DHC WG charter

Thomas,

And who defines who a subject matter expert is?  What if we don't think they measure up technically?  Do we go to Harald as IESG Chair?

Your tone is belittleing to this group IMO.  I don't like it sir.

thanks
/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Narten [mailto:narten@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 14, 2002 2:17 PM
> To: Ralph Droms
> Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] DHC WG charter 
> 
> 
> some comments on the charter:
> 
> Nits:
> 
> Would be good to have a short intro sentence at the start something
> like:
> 
> The base DHC protocol is documented in RFCs 2131 and 2132 as well as a
> number of related extensions and options (e.g., RFC 3118). 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
> 
> Sounds here like your already jumping ahead to the requirements for
> new protocols. I.e., shouldn't this phase be focused on undertstanding
> limiations of the current mechanisms? Is this just a wording issue?
> 
> >    - 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
> 
> What's missing above is a clear statement that this WG will develop
> new authentication mechanisms that address the deployability problems
> with the current schemes (whether through an extension to 3118 or
> something else). Or that it will address the relay-agent to DHC server
> path.
> 
> > * 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
> 
> General comment on options (both IPv4 and IPv6). I'd like the charter
> to clearly indicate that the DHC WG will be reviewing options to make
> sure they are  consistent with the protocol, other option usages, etc.
> 
> In terms of reviewing  options for their semantic contents, that
> will be done by subject matter experts, which may well not be in this
> WG. This WG is not to take on options as WG documents until such an
> outside expert has been identified and, e.g., the relevant  WG has
> agreed on the need for such an option. What I'd like to avoid is
> having the DHC WG spend time on options for which there isn't a clear
> customer. 
> 
> >    - 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.
> 
> The way its written above, sounds like one big fat hard-to-write
> document. :-) Can't we do something simpler,  such as just have folks
> write IDs that take on specific  issues and advance  them as
> standalone RFCs (as appropriate), incorporating them into the base
> spec when the base spec is republished? I'm worried that the above
> reads like a lot of work that no one will be foolish enough 
> to sign up for.
> 
> > * 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
> 
> Are there IDs for all of the above? If so, citing them would be good.
> 
> Also, I don't like the "other client and relay agent options" as it is
> too open ended. I think the WG needs a way of vetting potential
> options before the WG takes them on officially.
> 
> > * Review new options for DHCP, as deemed appropriate by the working
> >    group and/or the Internet area directors
> 
> See above.
> 
> Thomas
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> 
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg