Re: [dhcwg] question about duid in dhcpv6
Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Tue, 06 October 2009 20:46 UTC
Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A677F3A686B for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 13:46:51 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.141
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.141 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.158, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id b-QVGWsRAIpU for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 13:46:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og121.obsmtp.com (exprod7og121.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9236E3A67B0 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 13:46:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob121.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKSsutG4UDHI0X1ISg+c+t6iwYX9KXZD1V@postini.com; Tue, 06 Oct 2009 13:48:29 PDT
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (webmail.nominum.com [64.89.228.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "webmail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D8601B82F7; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 13:48:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vpna-148.vpn.nominum.com (64.89.227.148) by exchange-01.win.nominum.com (64.89.228.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.393.1; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 13:48:26 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1076)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="GB2312"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <7302d480910020903u1fe8ec2dqfc5c7e0ae2a39e49@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 13:48:23 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <BCEA265F-43F5-4C31-959B-5E807FF30EA0@nominum.com>
References: <7302d480910020903u1fe8ec2dqfc5c7e0ae2a39e49@mail.gmail.com>
To: 肖飏 <xiaoyang007@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1076)
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] question about duid in dhcpv6
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:46:51 -0000
On Oct 2, 2009, at 9:03 AM, Фïr wrote: > Considering such a scenario: server wants to send client a message > with the Server Identifier Option preserving DUID field as a special > address. When client receives the message, it will try to interpret > DUID as an address for further processing, such as verification. I > am confused because in the RFC 3315, it mentions that "Clients and > servers MUST treat DUIDs as opaque values and MUST only compare > DUIDs for equality. Clients and servers MUST NOT in any other way > interpret DUIDs", so I want to ask you whether it violates the RFC > 3315? I do not know if I understood your question correctly. It sounds like you are asking if the client can check the server DUID against a list of server DUIDs to see if the server that sent the message is trusted. Is that what you are asking? If so, this should be okay, because you are following the RFC. Checking DUIDs against a list is comparing for equality. If you are asking a different question, could you rephrase the question? Perhaps describe precisely what you want to do with the DUID?