Re: [dhcwg] PKIX WG new I-D draft: DHCP section review

Massimiliano Pala <Massimiliano.Pala@Dartmouth.edu> Mon, 08 December 2008 17:38 UTC

Return-Path: <dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: dhcwg-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DCF23A6A71; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 09:38:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FEC93A6A7F for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 09:38:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FA18TVNBy8vu for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 09:38:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailhub2.dartmouth.edu (mailhub2.dartmouth.edu [129.170.17.107]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 714F93A67F1 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 8 Dec 2008 09:38:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from newblitzen.Dartmouth.EDU (newblitzen.dartmouth.edu [129.170.208.36]) by mailhub2.dartmouth.edu (8.13.5/DND2.0/8.13.5) with ESMTP id mB8Gpi9J010443 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 8 Dec 2008 12:38:01 -0500
X-Disclaimer: This message was received from outside Dartmouth's BlitzMail system.
Received: from dhcp-212-179.cs.dartmouth.edu [129.170.212.179] by newblitzen.Dartmouth.EDU (Mac) via SMTP for id <138013009>; 08 Dec 2008 12:38:00 -0500
Message-ID: <493D5B77.1050708@Dartmouth.edu>
Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2008 12:37:59 -0500
From: Massimiliano Pala <Massimiliano.Pala@Dartmouth.edu>
Organization: Dartmouth College - Computer Science Department
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080707)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
References: <4935915E.1060708@Dartmouth.edu> <F32C8732-944D-4DB4-9E39-FF4430973C1A@nominum.com> <A29FB4BE-EDEC-4BD8-B2A4-DE340BAB6A84@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <A29FB4BE-EDEC-4BD8-B2A4-DE340BAB6A84@cisco.com>
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean by mailhub.Dartmouth.EDU
X-MailScanner-From: massimiliano.pala@dartmouth.edu
Cc: DHC-WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Damien Neil <Damien.Neil@nominum.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] PKIX WG new I-D draft: DHCP section review
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/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>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0590387725=="
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org

Hi Ralph and Damien,

thanks for the input, it is very useful. I was trying to take a look
at how to define the options for the example, I picked the ip-address
as, from the man page, you can specify a list of ip-address but it
does not say IPv4 only (although there is an ipv6-address...).

Shall I use the domain-list data type as specified in RFC 3361 section
3.1 instead ? Would this be a better encoding ? My idea is to use an
already-existing data-type so it would be easier for PRQP adopters.

Cheers,
Max


Ralph Droms wrote:
> I agree with Damien's review.  Take a look at RFC 4280 for an example of 
> how to write parallel definitions for an option in DHCPv4 and DHCPv6.
> 
> -  Ralph
> 
> On Dec 2, 2008, at Dec 2, 2008,3:11 PM, Damien Neil wrote:
> 
>> On Dec 2, 2008, at 11:49 AM, Massimiliano Pala wrote:
>>>    http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-pkix-prqp-01.txt
>>>
>>> I would need the expertise from your WG to validate the DHCP part of 
>>> the I-D.
>>
>> At first glance, two issues jump out at me:
>>
>> Section B.1.1 does not indicate whether the option is for DHCPv4 or 
>> DHCPv6.  The option code and length fields are 16 bits wide, which 
>> implies DHCPv6, but the examples in subsequent sections imply DHCPv4.  
>> DHCPv4 options encode the option code and length as a single octet 
>> each.  (Section B.1.1 also references RFC 3315, implying DHCPv6.)
>>
>> Section B.1.1 specifies that the option contains a list of DNS names, 
>> but the ISC DHCP examples in section B.1.2 are for an option 
>> containing a list of IPv4 addresses.
>>
>>               - Damien
>> _______________________________________________
>> dhcwg mailing list
>> dhcwg@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> 


-- 

Best Regards,

	Massimiliano Pala

--o------------------------------------------------------------------------
Massimiliano Pala [OpenCA Project Manager]  Massimiliano.Pala@dartmouth.edu
                                                  project.manager@openca.org

Dartmouth Computer Science Dept               Home Phone: +1 (603) 369-9332
PKI/Trust Laboratory                          Work Phone: +1 (603) 646-9179
--o------------------------------------------------------------------------

People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us
who do.
							   -- Isaac Asimov
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg