Re: [dhcwg] Adoption call on draft-csl-dhc-dhcpv6-unknown-msg-3315update-00

Dear Bernie,

Thank you for your thorough review of the draft. Please see inline :)

Best Regards,
Qi

On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> wrote:

>
> This document (I believe) intends to update RFC 3315, but does not
> indicate that in the header.

[Qi] Yes, the draft is meant to update RFC 3315 about the handling of
unknown messages. We will make it clear in Abstract & Introduction parts.

> This might be something to debate, but I would think it may want to make
> some explicit changes to RFC 3315. For example, RFC 3315 section 20.1
> states:
>
>    When a relay agent receives a
>    valid message to be relayed, it constructs a new Relay-forward
>    message.
>
> So what was meant by 'valid' message? Here, I suspect you want to clarify
> this and perhaps state everything but a Relay-Reply (at least at the
> present time, future documents might change this if there are messages
> intended for the Relay -- such as the new message proposed by
> draft-scskf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6). That in itself may create a slightly
> odd situation.
>

[Qi] We will try to make the changes to RFC 3315 more specific and address
these related issues.

> Some other nits:
> - Section 2, "...in RFC 3315 about [the case that] what a relay". "The
> case that" can be removed.
> - Section 3, "leverage the information" ... what information?
>

[Qi] We use the word "information" intends to say a relay agent is able to
tell that the Relay-reply message is for uplink while the Relay-forward and
other messages are for downlink. Maybe we need more efforts to make it
clearer.

> - Section 5, "attacker can interference ... inject fake" ... attacker can
> interfere ... by injecting? Note also that the client and server attacks
> for invalid message type code packets already exists for "on-link" attacks
> too.
>

[Qi] What we would like to express is that an attacker can interfere the
DHCP process by constructing a packet with an unknown message type code
(considering the relay agent will relay unknown message).

> - Section 5, "yet no known vulnerabilities exist". I'm not sure it is a
> good idea to claim this; perhaps best to just drop those words.
>

[Qi] We would remove those words.

> - The document makes use of 2119 keywords yet does not indicate so.
> - All RFC 3315 usages should likely be to the reference.
>
[Qi] We will make modifications accordingly.

>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
> Tomek Mrugalski
> Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2013 1:26 PM
> To: dhcwg
> Subject: [dhcwg] Adoption call on
> draft-csl-dhc-dhcpv6-unknown-msg-3315update-00
>
> Hi all,
> This draft is a side effect of the DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6 discussions during
> last IETF meeting. We were somewhat surprised to note that RFC3315 does not
> clarify how the relays should handle message types that they do not
> recognize. This draft clarifies that unknown messages should be relayed as
> usual.
>
> Authors requested adoption call on
> draft-csl-dhc-dhcpv6-unknown-msg-3315update-00. This call is being
> initiated to confirm whether there is WG consensus to adopt this work as
> DHC WG draft. Please state whether or not you're in favor of the adoption
> by replying to this mail.
> If you are not in favor, please also state your objections in your
> response. This adoption call will complete on 2013-04-17.
>
> Regards,
> Bernie & Tomek
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>