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

["Bernie Volz (volz)" <[e-mail]>]

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:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, February 17, 2017 5:35 PM
To: Bernie Volz (volz) <[e-mail]>; Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>; 神明達哉 <[e-mail]>
Cc: dhcwg <[e-mail]>
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:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Bernie Volz (volz)
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 2:39 PM
To: Ted Lemon <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>; 神明達哉 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: dhcwg <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
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 (see 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):

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:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Ted Lemon
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 1:49 PM
To: 神明達哉 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
Cc: dhcwg <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>>
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 <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> 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.