Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to Internet Standard - NO SUPPORT FOR THIS??????

JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com> Fri, 23 August 2013 07:01 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei@isc.org>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77CAD11E82D0 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 00:01:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LxUPs+mx2MSc for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 00:01:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A498A11E82CC for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 00:01:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B71B0C94CF; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 07:01:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jinmei@isc.org)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 07:01:34 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from jinmei@isc.org)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91AF6160363; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 07:01:52 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from jmb.jinmei.org (99-115-129-51.uvs.sntcca.sbcglobal.net [99.115.129.51]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 66F1F1602B4; Fri, 23 Aug 2013 07:01:52 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 00:01:31 -0700
Message-ID: <m2siy07uwk.wl%jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com>
From: JINMEI Tatuya / =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= <jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E186A6664@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E186A6664@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.9 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/24.3 Mule/6.0 (HANACHIRUSATO)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-DCC--Metrics: post.isc.org; whitelist
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to Internet Standard - NO SUPPORT FOR THIS??????
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Fri, 23 Aug 2013 07:01:54 -0000

At Thu, 22 Aug 2013 13:17:08 +0000,
"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> wrote:

> Unless we receive some additional comments from the WG, we will be forced to conclude that there is NO support for advancing these documents to Internet Standard.

I don't know if this is a blocking issue, but I found some unclear
points regarding DHCPv6 authentication and described them in an I-D
several years ago:
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-clarify-auth-01.txt

While the I-D itself was effectively dead, I suspect the issues are
still open today.  On a related note, I suspect the delayed
authentication protocol has not really been used widely and/or proving
interoperability beyond the experimental/testing level.

In terms of the RFC6410 criteria, these are probably related to the
following points:

   (2) There are no errata against the specification that would cause a
       new implementation to fail to interoperate with deployed ones.

   (3) There are no unused features in the specification that greatly
       increase implementation complexity.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya