[dhcwg] RE: IESG Discusses/Comments on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-remoteid-00. txt
"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com> Sat, 21 January 2006 16:37 UTC
Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F0Ljv-0002z4-6O; Sat, 21 Jan 2006 11:37:23 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1F0Lju-0002yw-EB; Sat, 21 Jan 2006 11:37:22 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA10916; Sat, 21 Jan 2006 11:35:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com ([192.11.222.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1F0Lss-0005TO-ON; Sat, 21 Jan 2006 11:46:39 -0500
Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k0LGbC8h006326; Sat, 21 Jan 2006 10:37:13 -0600 (CST)
Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id <CN6217BP>; Sat, 21 Jan 2006 17:37:11 +0100
Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B1550922BF8A@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com>
From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>, iesg@ietf.org, dhcwg@ietf.org
Date: Sat, 21 Jan 2006 17:37:09 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 29dc808194f5fb921c09d0040806d6eb
Cc:
Subject: [dhcwg] RE: IESG Discusses/Comments on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-remoteid-00. txt
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: dhcwg.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
I am OK with your proposed path to address my DISCUSS. Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: iesg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-bounces@ietf.org]On Behalf Of > Bernie Volz (volz) > Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 17:59 > To: iesg@ietf.org; dhcwg@ietf.org > Subject: IESG Discusses/Comments on > draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-remoteid-00.txt > > > The following DISCUSSED and COMMENTS were raised during IESG review of > draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-remoteid-00.txt (see > https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=pri > nt_ballot& > ballot_id=1835&filename=draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-remoteid): > > DISCUSSES AND COMMENTS: > ====================== > Sam Hartman: > > Discuss [2005-11-27]: > The security considerations section does not appear to discuss the > potential problems associated with trusting the remote ID. For > example, spoofing caller ID information is relativly easy; if DHCP > selected which network to put a subscriber on based on caller id, then > this might be subject to abuse. I'm not asking for a prohibition of > such uses simply a discussion of the implications. > > --- > MY RESPONSE: > > Sam: This option is used between a relay agent and a DHCP > server (added > by the relay agent when relaying the client's request to the > server). In > most deployments, these devices are under the same > administrative domain > and the communication can be secured as stated in section > 21.1, Security > of Messages Sent Between Servers and Relay Agents, of RFC 3315 (ie, > IPsec). > > Thus, I don't see that this should be an issue. > > --- > > David Kessens: > > Comment [2005-12-01]: > I support Bert's DISCUSS: > > Why does the DHC working group not standarize an option for > for example: > > a "caller ID" telephone number for dial-up connection > > It is very hard to make something 'globally unique' if you don't know > what it > is exactly. > > --- > MY RESPONSE: > > This draft was based on the text in RFC 3046 (for DHCPv4). > > We could certainly propose yet another registry for a format type. Or, > perhaps even better, change the format to include the enterprise-id, > such as: > > 0 1 2 3 > 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 > 7 8 9 0 1 > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | OPTION_REMOTE_ID | option-len > | > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > | enterprise-number > | > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > . > . > . remote-id > . > . > . > > +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ > > Then, the enterprise can take responsibility to assure that the > remote-id is unique. > > What do folks thing about this proposal? > > --- > > Bert Wijnen: > > Discuss [2005-12-01]: > > Looking at section 3: > > 3. The Relay Agent Remote-ID Option > > This option MAY be added by DHCPv6 relay agents which terminate > switched or permanent circuits and have mechanisms to identify the > remote host end of the circuit. The remote-id field MAY be used to > encode, for instance: > > o a "caller ID" telephone number for dial-up connection > o a "user name" prompted for by a Remote Access Server > o a remote caller ATM address > o a "modem ID" of a cable data modem > o the remote IP address of a point-to-point link > o a remote X.25 address for X.25 connections > o an interface identity, which might be the switch's DUID [1] > suffixed by the interface-id from the DHCPv6 > Interface-Id option. > > The remote ID MUST be globally unique. > > Then I wonder: > - the option MAY be added. So one cannot assume it will be added by > anyone > - the option MAY be used for many things, but one never knows if/how > the server is going to use it > - the "remote ID MUST be globally unique", yet it can be as short as 1 > octet. How is that "global uniqueness" guaranteed/administered? > > The doc is targeted for standards track. > But what/how does this option do to help STANDARDIZE any DHCP(v6) > behaviour? > > Or am I just confused? > > --- > MY RESPONSE: > > See my previous response above to David Kessens' comments. > > --- > > - Bernie > _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- [dhcwg] RE: IESG Discusses/Comments on draft-ietf… Wijnen, Bert (Bert)