[dhcwg] Draft minutes from WG meeting in Minneapolis

Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com> Fri, 05 April 2002 20:58 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA18429 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 15:58:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id PAA28389 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 15:58:57 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA28264; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 15:56:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA28231 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 15:56:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from funnel.cisco.com (funnel.cisco.com [161.44.168.79]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA18297 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 15:56:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from rdroms-w2k.cisco.com (dhcp-161-44-149-251.cisco.com [161.44.149.251]) by funnel.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id PAA24032 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 5 Apr 2002 15:55:38 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020405155256.00b7b628@funnel.cisco.com>
X-Sender: rdroms@funnel.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Fri, 05 Apr 2002 15:55:35 -0500
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Subject: [dhcwg] Draft minutes from WG meeting in Minneapolis
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org

The draft minutes are included below.  Thanks to Aidan Williams for his 
notes from the meeting, which I used in drafting these minutes.  Please get 
back to me with comments, additions and corrections by Mon, 4/8, so I can 
forward the minutes to the IETF.

- Ralph

DHC WG
------
Droms, DHCP to Full Standard
----------------------------
Ralph suggested the WG take on the task of moving DHCPv4 to full
standard.  This task would include minimal rewrites to correct and
clarify known problems and collect "lore" associated RFC2131/2132, and
collect all options into RFC2132.  Ted Lemon said collecting all the
options into RFC2132bis would be a bad idea because of the size of the
resulting doc and the potential for objections.  Kim Kinnear pointed
out that the options are not all at Draft Standard (where RFC2131 and
RFC2132 are today).  Ted and Mark Stapp said that operational issues
belong in a BCP and not in the base specification RFCs.  Thomas Narten
asked if this is the best use of WG resources?  He suggested the WG
focus on revising the WG charter and prioritizing the outstanding
tasks before selecting any particular task.  Droms will lead a
discussion of the WG charter on the dhcwg@ietf.org mailing list.


Henrik Levkowetz
DHCP Option for Mobile IP Foreign Agents
draft-levkowetz-dhc-mip-fa-00.txt
----------------------------------------
The draft defines a new option to specify MIP foreign agent
address.  That FA address is currently discovered by broadcast.  The
WG agreed to take on the document as a WG work item.


Ted Lemon/Carl Smith
Considerations for the use of the Host Name option
draft-ietf-dhc-host-option-considerations-00.txt
--------------------------------------------------
Ted and Carl began with a series of questions about the use of the
hostname and FQDN options.

The key issues in the draft are:
- Authentication of DHCP client and proxy updates through DHCP server
- Impact on FQDN option; e.g., use FQDN to delete existing name
- Interaction of existence of FQDN and hostname options (for backward
   compatibility)

This draft may impact the FQDN/DDNS drafts.  The authors will continue
working on the document.


Josh Tseng
DHCP Options for Internet Storage Name Service
draft-tseng-dhc-isnsoption-00.txt
----------------------------------------------
Review - ISNS is information (naming) repository for IP storage
devices.  DHCP will be important for configuration of iSCSI devices.
ISNS can also be located through SLP; there are examples of other
services that can be located through SLP and configured through DHCP.
The chair of the IP Storage WG confirmed that WG's support for this
draft.  The DHC WG agreed to take on the draft as a work item.


Bernie Volz
Load Balancing for DHCPv6
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-loadb-00.txt
----------------------------------
New draft based on feedback from discussion in SLC.  Applies to
messages not directed to a specific server.  Uses DHCPv6 recovery if
target (based on load balancing) is down.  Uses hash algorithm from
RFC 3074.  Next step: review and comment from WG.

WG comments:
- Relay agent can support load balancing
- Draft could use more motivation
- Draft could use more on potential configurations
- If the server DUID is not present, the relay agent should not do
   load balancing.


John Schnizlein
RADIUS Attributes Sub-option for the DHCP Relay Agent Information Option
draft-ietf-dhc-agentopt-radius-00.txt
------------------------------------------------------------------------

This document is now a working group draft.  The motivation is AAA
server, not 802.1x, so this draft now focuses on authentication
service; it can use any RADIUS-based identity/authentication
information.

One potential security issue is impostor fabrication of DHCPDISCOVER
with an RA option.  The current draft uses an implicit trust
relationship between AAA server and DHCP server (a shared
key) through which the AAA and DHCP server can communicate signed
information.

The WG a\greed to take on the problem of authenticating messages
between the relay agent and the server.


Kim Kinnear
DHCP Lease Query
draft-ietf-dhc-leasequery-03.txt
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most recent rev of the draft has been significantly reorganized.
There are new reply messages (KNOWN/UNKNOWN/ACTIVE); fixes,
clarifications to reservation handling; Redefined
dhcp-requested-address option to return multiple IP addresses.  Ready
for last call?  Yes.

Kim Kinnear
Subnet Selection sub-option for the Relay Agent Information Option
------------------------------------------------------------------

This spec has gone through WG last call.  One issue has appeared in
last call review.  In the subnet selection option spec, the server
returns the option only if it actually used the option.
Howver, the server is required to return all realy agent options, so
the relay agent can' determine if the server actually used the subnet
selection suboption.

Solutions:
- Ignore the problem; wait for phone call to notice problem.
- If relay agent doesn't get subnet selection sub-option, will drop
   packet and client won't get DHCP reply

Results of WG discussion
1. Remove words that say client should not use option if not included
in response to option and suboption
2. Remove words that say server should send option if used in
selection
3. Add text that says client MUST NOT use presence or absence of
option or suboption in determining if option was used

Droms/Troan
IPv6 Prefix Options for DHCPv6
draft-troan-dhcpv6-opt-prefix-delegation-00.txt
-----------------------------------------------
This option allows an ISP router to delegate prefixes to a CPE.
There are several open issues:
   - two message exchange for static prefixes
   - use of ipsec for authentication of these requests (rather than dhc
     authentication)
   - name issues: "dynamic", "host"
   - lemon: what about redundant routers..
Ralph will take the open issues to the WG mailing list.


Droms/Narten/Aboba
Using DHCPv6 for DNS Configuration in Hosts
draft-droms-dnsconfig-dhcpv6-01.txt
-------------------------------------------
The -01 rev has more information on how to implement the proposed DNS
configuration mechanism.  Ralph said the authors are considering
publishing the draft as an informational RFC.


Vijayabhaskar A K
DHCPv6 (rev -23) Issues
-----------------------
Vijay will publish drafts defining proposed options.

Suggestion: Should there be a separate XID range to avoid redundant
   retransmission after Reconfigure-Init; WG has considered this idea
   and has decided not to use it.
Suggestion: Should there be separate IAs for normal and temporary
   addresses.  How can client indicate to server that it no longer
   wants normal addresses? Vijay will post query to mailing list.
Question: Is there a potential conflict between address selection and
   "Default Address Selection" RFC. (A) There is no conflict because
   there is an explicit API in the advanced API spec for explicit
   source selection.
Editorial: Some error codes not used anywhere; will be removed.


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg