RE: [dhcwg] DHC WG charter

"Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com> Mon, 14 October 2002 22:27 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 SAA04678 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 18:27:59 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g9EMTiF28687 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 18:29:44 -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 g9EMTiv28684 for <dhcwg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 18:29:44 -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 SAA04666 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 18:27:28 -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 g9EMRQv28574; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 18:27:26 -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 g9EMQ2v28498 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 18:26:02 -0400
Received: from zmamail04.zma.compaq.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA04400 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 18:23:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tayexg12.americas.cpqcorp.net (tayexg12.americas.cpqcorp.net [16.103.130.103]) by zmamail04.zma.compaq.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7E335AF0; Mon, 14 Oct 2002 18:25:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tayexc13.americas.cpqcorp.net ([16.103.130.26]) by tayexg12.americas.cpqcorp.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.2966); Mon, 14 Oct 2002 18:25:55 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.6249.0
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] DHC WG charter
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2002 18:25:55 -0400
Message-ID: <9C422444DE99BC46B3AD3C6EAFC9711B02BE94F2@tayexc13.americas.cpqcorp.net>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] DHC WG charter
Thread-Index: AcJzsQdHiKev0cazT7+e3BCiHMXZpwAH2DEQ
From: "Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>
To: "Thomas Narten" <narten@us.ibm.com>, "Ralph Droms" <rdroms@cisco.com>
Cc: <dhcwg@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Oct 2002 22:25:55.0710 (UTC) FILETIME=[A9B071E0:01C273D0]
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by www1.ietf.org id g9EMQ2v28499
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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

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