[dhcwg] draft-bi-dhc-sec-option
Alper Yegin <alper.yegin@yegin.org> Tue, 27 March 2012 15:06 UTC
Return-Path: <alper.yegin@yegin.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 6B48421E822B for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 08:06:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.395
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.395 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.204, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 f36AajcjstMY for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 08:06:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.195]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3808921E81A0 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 08:06:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.1.1.2] (odakk1.odakk.com [78.111.98.194]) by mrelay.perfora.net (node=mrus3) with ESMTP (Nemesis) id 0LpsUx-1SiYfq0rBP-00f0QZ; Tue, 27 Mar 2012 11:06:40 -0400
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
From: Alper Yegin <alper.yegin@yegin.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAC16W0DXs4q5ApuiyN4pVJVuXQQunAFMGnu5JjJvszcWjnncJA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 18:06:34 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <2F208A97-BFF3-4820-BA98-3E47AC41D992@yegin.org>
References: <CAC16W0DXs4q5ApuiyN4pVJVuXQQunAFMGnu5JjJvszcWjnncJA@mail.gmail.com>
To: dhc WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:vbMQccG5t+/kaUJp4OsoM2d1tCOxQhkbWZ/+WdXpHe/ sia3eg/hP0P+f4b0bWDrrVMGnMkuAOIrVeUZokgvdj08Sd2xy+ ACWvtfXv+GAvhLVL9wl0D7oUW2/2rjNCad5c26a4YBDyNsyAml 17zIyHlGvT1rQ/IqcRdcaBvo3KdCFXDeerrJX7ZpElb5+qqG1/ pYWBL1RByamCK8IgmA2SFn7ZE4rHxWjjQGVb2TXiWFnPCUBetv wr5UwoSoikTqbV8VMy8xDw05sGO8MIpYxt2ML8e8Nr4iD4UaLy tTwlgOqgLBiDSsDjV8NZ5Q6v+R8i4ouGy1/LmLOVPKfSrEFOl/ 8JeXn5h8fbR45FmPiT0B1fAK1420g74gPAvzawSFw
Subject: [dhcwg] draft-bi-dhc-sec-option
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: Tue, 27 Mar 2012 15:06:44 -0000
Not that this draft is the source of this issue , but it certainly highlights the following: RFC 3118 is not used. Sending security parameters over DHCP needs consideration.
- [dhcwg] Request for Review on draft-ietf-dhc-dhc… Peng Wu
- [dhcwg] draft-bi-dhc-sec-option Alper Yegin
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-bi-dhc-sec-option Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-bi-dhc-sec-option Cui Yang
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-bi-dhc-sec-option Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-bi-dhc-sec-option Cui Yang