Re: [dhcwg] Citing 'draft-ietf-dhc-secdhcpv6' (rfc3315bis)

["Bernie Volz (volz)" <[e-mail]>]

Please explain what else the relay needs to know.

- Bernie (from iPhone)

On Aug 25, 2016, at 9:34 AM, Templin, Fred L <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:

Hi, on further consideration RAAN options alone are not sufficient for my
needs. For my needs, the relay has to be able to inspect the contents of
both the client's messages to the server and the server's messages to
the client. And, it is about more than just IA_NA and IA_PD.

The use case is VPN clients connecting in to a secured home network then
using DHCPv6 to obtain prefixes and/or addresses. So, the client comes in
across a secured link where there is no concern for eavesdropping, but
the client still needs to prove to the server that it is authorized to receive
the requested addresses/prefixes.

In that case, when we can say that the link is secured against eavesdropping,
then there is a use case for authentication-only DHCPv6 security.

Thanks - Fred
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>

From: dhcwg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Templin, Fred L
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 12:51 PM
To: Bernie Volz (volz) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: dhcwg <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Ted Lemon <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Citing 'draft-ietf-dhc-secdhcpv6' (rfc3315bis)

Can we dust this off and insert it back into the process?

Thanks - Fred

From: Bernie Volz (volz) [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 12:46 PM
To: Templin, Fred L <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms) <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; Ted Lemon <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; dhcwg <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Citing 'draft-ietf-dhc-secdhcpv6' (rfc3315bis)

Note that latest version of that draft is https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-agentopt-delegate-04.

Also, 03 used the https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-srsn-option-02 draft to address out of order issues. Don't recall why 04 removed this and whether there were other issues still unresolved - though I think there were.

Sadly there is no change log to indicate changes made in each rev, so we will need to review the email dialog and meeting minutes around the time of these drafts to determine open issues & how to move forward. I think interest died because cable (cmts) just started to snoop the client packets. This actually doesn't resolve out of order issues, though I think those have not caused any known problems. So while in theory they could be, in practice they are not.
- Bernie (from iPhone)

On Aug 24, 2016, at 11:26 AM, Templin, Fred L <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
draft-draft-droms-dhc-dhcpv6-agentopt-delegate-00.txt