Re: [dhcwg] New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-20.txt

Bernie - a long time ago, if I recall correctly, you asked me if I had XML source for the earlier RAAN document.  I searched around, but can't seem to find that file.  Is the text in that earlier doc at all useful for this instantiation of RAAN?

- Ralph

> On Feb 27, 2017, at 3:17 PM, Templin, Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ted,
>  
> Just getting back to this after being away for the past week:
>  
> Ø  Fred, I think we all agree that this problem needs to be solved.
>  
> I still think it would be cleanest and most consistent with past works if the base
> sedhcpv6 specification were to include the RAAN option itself. But, if that would
> not be possible and if (as you say) there is agreement that this problem needs
> to be solved, then we should adopt the RAAN draft as a dhcwg working group
> item now.
>  
> Ø  We don't agree that work on the security draft must stop until the raan draft is done.
>  
> I never said or meant to imply that the security draft must stop until RAAN is done.
> To the contrary, the two documents could run in parallel with both being dhcwg WG
> items now and with no interdependencies. By adopting RAAN as a WG item now,
> implementers would be more likely to implement RAAN in parallel with sedhcpv6
> rather than defer it to some (much) later time.
>  
> Ø  It's just not that hard.
>  
> Definitely agree.
>  
> Thanks - Fred
>  
> From: Ted Lemon [mailto:mellon@fugue.com] 
> Sent: Saturday, February 18, 2017 9:17 AM
> To: Templin, Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
> Cc: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>; 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>; Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com>
> Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-20.txt
>  
> Fred, I think we all agree that this problem needs to be solved. We don't agree that work on the security draft must stop until the raan draft is done. It's just not that hard. 
>  
> On Feb 18, 2017 11:28 AM, "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com <mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>> wrote:
> Hi Bernie,
>  
> My understanding  is that sedhcpv6 is intended to be a product of the IETF,
> so I therefore assume that it is intended to be a product of engineering. It
> has been shown that sedhcpv6 has an omission that will limit its applicability,
> and that that omission can be rather easily remedied prior to publication. It
> therefore makes good engineering sense to fix the omission now.
>  
> The proposal again is to have sedhcpv6 specify the RAAN option as part of
> the base document.
>  
> Thanks - Fred
>  
> From: Bernie Volz (volz) [mailto:volz@cisco.com <mailto:volz@cisco.com>] 
> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 3:00 PM
> To: Templin, Fred L <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com <mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>>; Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com <mailto:mellon@fugue.com>>;神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp <mailto:jinmei@wide.ad.jp>>
> 
> Cc: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>>
> Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-20.txt
>  
> I think the plan here makes some sense … seDHCPv6 has had several attempts and been kicked back to the WG. So, I think the WG wants to go slowly and not develop a solution until seDHCPv6 is likely to advance in the IESG (encryption was only added fairly “recently”).
>  
> And, it isn’t like the day after seDHCPv6 is “approved” that every client (and server) will support this. It will take time to roll out. And, hopefully we can get the RAAN work out in a fairly short time.
>  
> In your networks, if you can’t support seDHCPv6 until you have something to so solve the RAAN issues, you obviously can’t deploy seDHCPv6. But there may be plenty of other networks where this isn’t an issue and it could start to be deployed (coffee shops and enterprises).
>  
> -          Bernie
> 
>  
> From: Templin, Fred L [mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com <mailto:Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>] 
> Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 5:35 PM
> To: Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com <mailto:volz@cisco.com>>; Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com <mailto:mellon@fugue.com>>; 神明達哉<jinmei@wide.ad.jp <mailto:jinmei@wide.ad.jp>>
> Cc: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>>
> Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-20.txt
>  
> Bernie,
>  
> The discussion gravitated towards not resurrecting until the sedhcpv6
> I-D progresses further. We will reevaluate this once sedhcpv6 is done.
>  
> This does not make sense to me; sedhcpv6 is the very reason that RAAN is important.
> Just like RFC3971 did with IPv6 ND Timestamp and Nonce options, sedhcpv6 could
> define the RAAN operation and have everything over and done with in one pass.
> And, I have already identified a use case where RAAN is absolutely necessary.
> Also, I was unable to attend  IETF97, where I certainly would have stood up and
> voiced my position.
>  
> Thanks - Fred
>  
> From: dhcwg [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Bernie Volz (volz)
> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 2:39 PM
> To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com <mailto:mellon@fugue.com>>; 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp <mailto:jinmei@wide.ad.jp>>
> Cc: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>>
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-20.txt
>  
> I presented about resurrecting draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-agentopt-delegate at IETF-97 (seehttps://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97/slides/slides-97-dhc-resurrect-draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-agentopt-delegate-00.pdf <https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97/slides/slides-97-dhc-resurrect-draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-agentopt-delegate-00.pdf>).
>  
> And the conclusion then was (see https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97/minutes/minutes-97-dhc-00.txt <https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97/minutes/minutes-97-dhc-00.txt>):
>  
> The discussion gravitated towards not resurrecting until the sedhcpv6
> I-D progresses further. We will reevaluate this once sedhcpv6 is done.
>  
> -          Bernie
> 
>  
> From: dhcwg [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org>] On Behalf Of Ted Lemon
> Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 1:49 PM
> To: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp <mailto:jinmei@wide.ad.jp>>
> Cc: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>>
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-20.txt
>  
> On Feb 15, 2017, at 1:32 PM, 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp <mailto:jinmei@wide.ad.jp>> wrote:
> I personally don't think it a blocking issue for sedhcpv6, but, of
> course, the wg should decide it.
>  
> It definitely isn't a blocking issue, but Fred is right that if we are going ahead with encryption-only, which I agree is the right move, we need to do this work as well.
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg