[dhcwg] Re: draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-02.txt
Paul Duffy <paduffy@cisco.com> Fri, 02 August 2002 21:56 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA08579 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 17:56:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id RAA10707 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 17:57:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA10502; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 17:44:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA10480 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 17:44:27 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from funnel.cisco.com (funnel.cisco.com [161.44.168.79]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA08088 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 17:43:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from paduffy-w2k.cisco.com (ch2-dhcp150-53.cisco.com [161.44.150.53]) by funnel.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id RAA14284; Fri, 2 Aug 2002 17:43:53 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020802164429.027a0890@funnel.cisco.com>
X-Sender: paduffy@funnel.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2002 17:43:52 -0400
To: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
From: Paul Duffy <paduffy@cisco.com>
Cc: nrussell@cisco.com, Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>, m.osman@cablelabs.com, "Woundy, Richard" <RWoundy@broadband.att.com>, Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@sun.com>, dhcwg@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <200207291913.g6TJDdC02094@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: [dhcwg] Re: draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-02.txt
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
At 03:13 PM 7/29/2002 -0400, Thomas Narten wrote: >Hi. > >I understand there is a need to get this document finished very >quickly in order to get it into an RFC. > >Please respond to the messages posted to the mailing list quickly. I >fear this document may need a bit of work, as parts of it are hard to >follow, and I am not sure about the soundness of some aspects of the >ID. > >We need quick discussion and resolution if this document is going to >be completed in time for the August Cablelabs deadline. > >Thomas Folks, In the spirit of Thomas' original request, I'd like to propose the following steps so we can close this out soon... 1. We'll add text, something like the following, near the beginning of the I-D: "Cablelabs client devices will issue DHCP requests that include options 55 and 60. Option 55 will request the CCC option from the DHCP server. Option 60 will specify the specific Cablelabs client type, thus directing the DHCP server to populate specific CCC sub-option content in its responses. The details of which CCC sub-options are populated for each specific client type are spelled out in the various Cablelabs project specifications. For example, the PacketCable MTA Device Provisioning Specification [ref] defines the specific set of CCC sub-options that must be populated in DHCP responses to CMs and MTAs in a PacketCable deployment." 2. We'll change the description of sub-option 6 from "The Kerberos Realm name is an FQDN" to "The Kerberos Realm name is formatted per RFC 1510". 3. Regarding the optional port numbers on sub-options 1-5....Cablelabs has confirmed that we have to have this capability. For testing, for improved security...ultimately... because MSO's/cable operators are going to deploy these servers on non standard ports. We must have a way to configure the devices for the non standard port. If you disagree with our proposals, we ask that you please enlighten us re: a specific alternative. 4. Assuming you see the need for the optional port numbers, we strongly prefer to stick with sub-option 4/5 as defined in the draft. This will leave sub-options 1-5 more symmetrically defined and will be easier to implement. 5. Cablelabs will ECR any specification, referencing this I-D, to bring it into alignment with the RFC (when issued). PacketCable, CableHome, etc. This is normal Cablelabs procedure. We were holding off until the I-D made it to RFC. I hope we can reach agreement soon. There is important inter operability testing coming up at Calblelabs. Best Regards, -- Paul Duffy Cisco Systems, Inc. paduffy@cisco.com _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg