Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notification - Respond by September 13, 2023

[Bernie Volz <[e-mail]>]

Nicely put. I’m just not as favorable on the work as you are.

And, managed addresses (DHCP) by themselves offer no added “security” as a device could just configure an address it wants to use directly.

- Bernie Volz

> On Sep 12, 2023, at 10:54 AM, Sheng Jiang <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi, Bernie,
> 
> First, I would like to express my prefer for managed address model. It gives network management more authorization on network access and certainty on the user of addresses. And it does not reduce the autonomic or user transparant experience giving our feeling on using DHCP(v4). However, no matter the reason what have happened regarding to DHCPv6 deployment, it is the current situation that stateless address model are in dominant. Giving the limitation of reality, the notification mechanism of this document, as least, suppliments the lack of motheds that the network management can obtain the information of in-used addresses. Therefore, I support to move this document forward as a co-auhtor.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Sheng
>  
>  
> ------------------ Original ------------------
> From:  "Bernie Volz"<[e-mail]>;
> Date:  Tue, Sep 12, 2023 10:15 PM
> To:  "dhcwg"<[e-mail]>;
> Subject:  Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notification - Respond by September 13, 2023
>  
> Comments with co-chair hat off:
> 
> While I think this work has marginal utility as its is optional and can be disabled (as bad actors will soon learn to disable it in devices they may use for nefarious purposes), it may have some utility for help desk and other troubleshooting purposes. Whether the cost to implement (for clients and servers) is worth it is debatable. But we can let the market decide that.
> 
> I have worked on the draft to improve its clarity on what is expected of clients and servers.
> 
> I am not, however, a big supporter of this work. If all clients fully supported the “full” DHCPv6 protocol, there would be no need to configure prefixes for both managed and stateless as is now often the case to support “all” clients. And this is the situation that is driving this work - clients that don’t support managed address assignment. I’d prefer we invested the time and energy into getting that support, rather than extending the protocol to cover additional cases.
> 
> While some argue that a server need just log this information when a notification is received, that probably is too simplistic a view as administrators want to know what addresses are in use “now” (and scanning logs is not very efficient) and may want to use other facilities a server provides (such as historical views, again by not having to search logs). For the server I worked on these and other (failover and lease query) considerations make this much more complex to implement and integrate completely (though likely most of “our” customers will not demand for this work to be supported). Sure, for “check the box” that it is supported one can just log.
> 
> Comments with co-chair hat on:
> 
> The chairs need to follow the consensus of the working group, regardless of our personal opinions (we can weigh our position as we would any other “member’s”).
> 
> This is why it is important to hear from as many people as we can to understand the level of consensus that this work is useful and complete. Volume is just one measure (and sometimes a suspect one), but we are much more interested in detailed reviews of the work and your level of interest in seeing it move forward. Hopefully this message will spur more feedback to make the chairs decisions easier as to WGLC?
> 
> - Bernie Volz
> 
>>> On Sep 11, 2023, at 10:43 AM, Bernie Volz <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>> 
>> Just a friendly reminder for those that support this work, or those not in favor, to comment on the document. We will wait until Wednesday September 13th as subject had that date for WGLC to conclude. (Monday is September 11th - today.)
>> 
>> - Bernie Volz
>> 
>>>> On Aug 31, 2023, at 10:15 AM, Timothy Winters <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi:
>>> 
>>> The authors believe this document is ready for WGLC. Therefore, the chairs are initiating a WGLC on this document.
>>> 
>>> Please review this document and provide your comments and whether you support this document moving forward or not by end of day on Monday, September 13th, 2023.
>>> 
>>> Please see https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notification-04. This is a Standards Track document.
>>> 
>>> Thank you!
>>>   ~ Tim and Bernie
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dhcwg mailing list
>>> [e-mail]
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg