RE: [dhcwg] FW: RFC3315 question

["Templin, Fred L" <[e-mail]>]

Just to get this idea out, how does one go about getting a new
DUID type defined? In particular, it might be useful to define
a new DUID type that includes a client's public key such as
required by RFC3972. The actual format of the DUID type is for
further study, e.g., in addition to the public key it might be
desireable to include a link-layer address, a timestamp, etc.

Thanks - Fred
[e-mail] 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernie Volz (volz) [mailto:[e-mail]] 
> Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 11:19 AM
> To: Ralph Droms (rdroms); dhcwg
> Subject: RE: [dhcwg] FW: RFC3315 question
> 
> Ah, good that this is finally being cleaned up (I recall 
> there was some
> past discussion on this). Reference to RFC 826 was very poor 
> and really
> should have referenced the IANA pages (the Number Hardware Type (hrd)
> section of http://www.iana.org/assignments/arp-parameters).
> 
> Perhaps a reference to http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2469.txt might also
> help to address the canonical address issue? At least the describes
> canonical addresses.
> 
> Link layer also confused one major vendor into thinking they 
> should use
> the EUI-64 identifier, so perhaps an example wouldn't hurt as well (we
> have an example for DUID-EN, so why not for the others?).
> 
> - Bernie 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Droms (rdroms) 
> Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 4:53 PM
> To: dhcwg
> Subject: [dhcwg] FW: RFC3315 question
> 
> Alain Durand asked me a couple of questions about the 
> definition of the
> DUID
> formats based on link-layer addresses in RFC 3315.  The first question
> is
> about this text, which appears in both section 9.2, DUID Based on
> Link-layer
> Address Plus Time [DUID-LLT], and section 9.4, DUID Based on 
> Link-layer
> Address [DUID-LL]:
> 
>    The link-layer
>    address is stored in canonical form, as described in RFC 2464.
> 
> Alain checked RFC 2464, and he can't find how a link layer address is
> supposed to be stored in canonical form. The closest thing he 
> found is:
>  
>    The Source/Target Link-layer
>    Address option has the following form when the link layer is
>    Ethernet.
> 
>                     0                   1
>                     0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5
>                    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>                    |     Type      |    Length     |
>                    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
>                    |                               |
>                    +-          Ethernet           -+
>                    |                               |
>                    +-           Address           -+
>                    |                               |
>                    +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
> 
> And, RFC 2464 only describes Ethernet and is silent on other 
> link-layer
> addresses.
> 
> There is also an issue with the text:
> 
>    The hardware type MUST be a
>    valid hardware type assigned by the IANA, as described in RFC 826.
> 
> ...but, RFC 826 makes no reference to IANA.
> 
> Ted Lemon and I exchanged e-mail about the DUID issue, and 
> I've included
> Ted's response below.
> 
> Regarding the IANA/RFC 826 issue, I think it can be addressed by an
> errata:
> 
> OLD:
> 
>    The hardware type MUST be a valid hardware type
>    assigned by the IANA as described in RFC 826 [14].
> 
> NEW:
> 
>    The hardware type MUST be a valid hardware type from the list of
>    ARP hardware types maintained by IANA at <insert URL here>
> 
> - Ralph
> 
> =====
> 
> To be honest, I have no idea where the RFC2464 reference came from.
> I'd never read that RFC, and wasn't even aware of its existence.
> The word 'canonical' is only used twice in the RFC, and nowhere in
> the RFC is the meaning of 'canonical' described.   The point Alain
> raises is a really good one, and applies to RFC2464 as well, to some
> extent - it should define 'canonical'.
> 
> However, RFC2464 does give us some clue about this in section 2.5.1,
> Interface Identifiers, on page 8, where it describes in detail how to
> construct an interface identifier.   This does tell us what the
> author of RFC2464 thought the canonical form is.  But Alain's still
> right that the reference to RFC2464 is a mistake in isolation,
> because it leaves out all other possible frame header formats.
> Having said that, the problem remains - without specifying the
> arrangement of bits, you are left guessing.   People seem to have
> muddled through with RFC2131/2132, and I think they probably will
> with 3315 as well, but it could have been better specified.
> 
> I think the correct fix for the RFC2464 problem is to add some text
> like what's in RFC2373:
> 
>     The details of forming interface identifiers are defined in the
>     appropriate "IPv6 over <link>" specification such as "IPv6 over
>     Ethernet" [ETHER], "IPv6 over FDDI" [FDDI], etc.
> 
> We'd change it to this:
> 
>     The details of how the link-layer address is formatted are
> defined in the
>     appropriate "IPv6 over <link>" specification such as "IPv6 over
>     Ethernet" [RFC2464], "IPv6 over FDDI" [RFCnnnn], etc.
> Specifically, the
>     link-layer address should appear in the DUID-LLT option just as
> it does
>     in the frame header for that particular link type.  For 
> example the
>     link-layer address for an ethernet interface would be formatted
> in the
>     same way as the Destination Ethernet Address field of the
> ethernet frame
>     as described in the section of "IPv6 over Ethernet" [RFC2464]
> titled "Frame
>     Format."
> 
> This doesn't really solve the problem, because RFC2464 isn't specific
> about it either, but it gets rid of the erroneous reference to
> RFC2464 as the _only_ place to go, and it also gives the implementor
> a valuable clue for how to format the DUID-LLT - look at a frame you
> captured live on the wire.   That way.   That's lame, but it's better
> than nothing.   Really, RFC2464 should be more particular about
> referencing the document (presumably IEEE) that defines the 802.11
> header format.   You can see that the author had access to that
> document by reading section 2.5.1, but unfortunately s/he never
> references it.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> 

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg