RE: [dhcwg] DHC WG charter

[Ralph Droms <[e-mail]>]

The posted charter has been revised based on Bernie's input...

- Ralph

At 02:37 PM 10/23/2002 -0500, Bernie Volz (EUD) wrote:

>Ralph:
>
>This looks OK!
>
>One minor nit ... "The working group now has four main objectives:",
>actually there are 6 listed. Perhaps best just to change this to:
>"The working group now has the following main objectives:"?
>
>And, in the list of DHCPv6 documents, what about your draft
>draft-droms-dhcpv6-stateless-guide-00.txt?
>
>Do we need to also do a new Goals & Milestones section?
>
>- Bernie
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ralph Droms [<mailto:[e-mail]>mailto:[e-mail]]
>Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2002 2:26 PM
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: [dhcwg] DHC WG charter
>
>Here's a revised charter, based on input from mailing list discussion (this
>charter also available at 
><http://www.dhcp.org/charter-update.html);>http://www.dhcp.org/charter-update.html); 
>
>comments or acknowledgments (this looks OK) strongly encouraged...
>
>
>                    Dynamic Host Configuration (dhc)
>
>The dhc working group (DHCWG) has developed DHCP for automated
>allocation, configuration and management of IP addresses and TCP/IP
>protocol stack parameters. DHCP is currently a "Draft Standard".  The
>base protocol is document in RFC2131 and RFC2132.  Additional options
>are documented in a series of RFCs (see
><http://www.dhcp.org/rfcs.html>http://www.dhcp.org/rfcs.html).  The 
>working group now has four main
>objectives:
>
>* RFC 3118 defines current security mechanisms for DHCPv4.
>    Unfortunately, RFC 3118 has neither been implemented nor deployed to
>    date. There is widespread feeling that its current restriction to
>    manual keying of clients limits its deployability. It is the goal of
>    DHCWG to rectify this situation by defining extensions that have
>    better deployability properties. In order to achive this goal, DHCWG
>    will develop a threat model and analysis of the authentication
>    protection provided by RFC3118; specific issues to be addressed
>    might 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
>    - Complete or terminate work on published DHCPv6 options:
>        IPv6 Prefix Options for DHCPv6
>          <draft-troan-dhcpv6-opt-prefix-delegation-01.txt>
>        DSTM Options for DHCP
>          <draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-dstm-01.txt>
>        DSTM Ports Option for DHCPv6
>          <draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-dstm-ports-01.txt>
>        DNS Configuration options for DHCPv6
>          <draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-dnsconfig-01.txt>
>        Load Balancing for DHCPv6
>          <draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-loadb-02.txt>
>        NIS Configuration Options for DHCPv6
>          <draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-nisconfig-01.txt>
>        Time Configuration Options for DHCPv6
>          <draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-timeconfig-01.txt>
>        Client Preferred Prefix option for DHCPv6
>          <draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-cliprefprefix-00.txt>
>    - Encourage independent implementations and report on
>      interoperability testing
>
>* Complete or terminate work on DHCP extensions and new options that
>    are currently work in progress:
>    - Failover protocol
>    - DHCP/DDNS interaction
>      <draft-ietf-dhc-fqdn-option-04.txt>
>      <draft-ietf-dhc-ddns-resolution-04.txt>
>    - DHCP Server MIB
>      <draft-ietf-dhc-server-mib-07.txtDHCP MIB>
>    - Host name options (Smith/Lemon?)
>    - DHCP Leasequery
>    - DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Configuration
>      <draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-03.txt>
>    - KDC Server Address Sub-option
>      <draft-ietf-dhc-suboptions-kdc-serveraddress-00.txt>
>    - DHCP Options for Internet Storage name Service
>      <draft-ietf-dhc-isnsoption-03.txt>
>    - The Authentication Suboption for the DHCP Relay Agent Option
>      <draft-ietf-dhc-auth-suboption-00.txt>
>    - Link Selection sub-option for the Relay Agent Information Option
>      <draft-ietf-dhc-agent-subnet-selection-03.txt>
>    - DHCP VPN Information Option
>    - VPN Identifier sub-option for the Relay Agent Information Option
>    - RADIUS Attributes Sub-option for the DHCP Relay Agent Information 
> Option
>
>* DHCWG is responsible for reviewing (and sometimes developing) DHCP
>    options or other extensions (for both IPv4 and IPv6). DHCWG is
>    expected to review all proposed extensions to DHCP to ensure that
>    they are consistent with the DHCP specification and other option
>    formats, that they do not duplicate existing mechanisms, etc.  DHCWG
>    will not (generally) be responsible for evaluating the semantic
>    content of proposed options. DHCWG will not adopt new proposals for
>    extensions to DHCP as working group documents without first
>    coordinating with other relevant working groups and determining who
>    has the responsibility for reviewing the semantic content of an
>    option.
>
>* 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.
>
>_______________________________________________
>dhcwg mailing list
>[e-mail]
><https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg 
>

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg