Re: [dhcwg] DHC WG charter

Ralph Droms <> Wed, 23 October 2002 18:27 UTC

Received: from ( [] (may be forged)) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA28664 for <>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 14:27:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g9NITS615747 for; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 14:29:28 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g9NITSv15744 for <>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 14:29:28 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA28648 for <>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 14:27:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (localhost.localdomain []) by (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g9NIR3v15630; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 14:27:03 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g9NIPkv15559 for <>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 14:25:46 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA28359 for <>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 14:23:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.8.5-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id OAA12436 for <>; Wed, 23 Oct 2002 14:25:40 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 14:25:35 -0400
From: Ralph Droms <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] DHC WG charter
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Id: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

Here's a revised charter, based on input from mailing list discussion (this 
charter also available at; 
comments or acknowledgments (this looks OK) strongly encouraged...

		   Dynamic Host Configuration (dhc)

The dhc working group (DHCWG) has developed DHCP for automated
allocation, configuration and management of IP addresses and TCP/IP
protocol stack parameters. DHCP is currently a "Draft Standard".  The
base protocol is document in RFC2131 and RFC2132.  Additional options
are documented in a series of RFCs (see  The working group now has four main

* RFC 3118 defines current security mechanisms for DHCPv4.
   Unfortunately, RFC 3118 has neither been implemented nor deployed to
   date. There is widespread feeling that its current restriction to
   manual keying of clients limits its deployability. It is the goal of
   DHCWG to rectify this situation by defining extensions that have
   better deployability properties. In order to achive this goal, DHCWG
   will develop a threat model and analysis of the authentication
   protection provided by RFC3118; specific issues to be addressed
   might include:
   - Improved key management and scalability
   - Security for messages passed between relay agents and servers
   - Threats of DoS attacks through FORCERENEW

* Develop requirements for any new protocols to address threats or
   other enhancement identified by the threat model and analysis of

* Complete the specification of DHCP for IPv6 (DHCPv6):
   - Gain acceptance and publication of current Internet Draft as
     Proposed Standard
   - Complete or terminate work on published DHCPv6 options:
       IPv6 Prefix Options for DHCPv6
       DSTM Options for DHCP
       DSTM Ports Option for DHCPv6
       DNS Configuration options for DHCPv6
       Load Balancing for DHCPv6
       NIS Configuration Options for DHCPv6
       Time Configuration Options for DHCPv6
       Client Preferred Prefix option for DHCPv6
   - Encourage independent implementations and report on
     interoperability testing

* Complete or terminate work on DHCP extensions and new options that
   are currently work in progress:
   - Failover protocol
   - DHCP/DDNS interaction
   - DHCP Server MIB
     <draft-ietf-dhc-server-mib-07.txtDHCP MIB>
   - Host name options (Smith/Lemon?)
   - DHCP Leasequery
   - DHCP Option for CableLabs Client Configuration
   - KDC Server Address Sub-option
   - DHCP Options for Internet Storage name Service
   - The Authentication Suboption for the DHCP Relay Agent Option
   - Link Selection sub-option for the Relay Agent Information Option
   - DHCP VPN Information Option
   - VPN Identifier sub-option for the Relay Agent Information Option
   - RADIUS Attributes Sub-option for the DHCP Relay Agent Information Option

* DHCWG is responsible for reviewing (and sometimes developing) DHCP
   options or other extensions (for both IPv4 and IPv6). DHCWG is
   expected to review all proposed extensions to DHCP to ensure that
   they are consistent with the DHCP specification and other option
   formats, that they do not duplicate existing mechanisms, etc.  DHCWG
   will not (generally) be responsible for evaluating the semantic
   content of proposed options. DHCWG will not adopt new proposals for
   extensions to DHCP as working group documents without first
   coordinating with other relevant working groups and determining who
   has the responsibility for reviewing the semantic content of an

* Write an analysis of the DHCP specification, including RFC2131,
   RFC2132 and other RFCs defining additional options, which identifies
   ambiguities, contradictory specifications and other obstacles to
   development of interoperable implementations.  Recommend a process
   for resolving identified problems and incorporating the resolutions
   into the DHCP specification.

dhcwg mailing list