Re: [dhcwg] Comments on draft-ietf-dhc-relay-server-security-01

[Tomek Mrugalski <[e-mail]>]

W dniu 09.12.2016 o 17:27, Bernie Volz (volz) pisze:
> I discussed some of these issues with Tomek a bit.
> 
> Regarding the non-normative language issue, we have a proposal as follows:
> - We will move the existing (non-normative language) into draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis as it is best we don't require (but recommend) IPsec for DHCPv6. This would also correct the open issue we have in the draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis document regarding the algorithms to use.
> - We will reword this draft (in the 02) to use the normative (i.e., MUST) language. That way, if a vendor claims to be in compliance with this (future) RFC, they would have to fully support IPsec for the relay to server communication.
That seems fine. This change would address my concerns.

>> idnits report some issues with references. The text cites RFC2409, but it was obsoleted by RFC4306.
> 
> I think the best move might be to change " Accordingly, IKE [RFC2409] / IKE2 [RFC7296] with preshared..." to just be " Accordingly, IKE2 [RFC7296] with preshared ..." and drop RFC 2409 altogether.
That's fine by me.

>> The document is very specific as to what is updated in RFC3315 (section 21.1), but it's blurry regarding RFC1542 update. Is there any specific text that is being updated? If there is, please clearly state so. If there isn't, maybe this draft doesn't update RFC1542?
> 
> For 1542, it really "extends" it since that document was silent about IPsec ... so we can remove this.
Ok, that will work.

> And, I wonder if we should even say it updates 3315 as that might imply it is "required" -- and we'll be updating draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis already, as mentioned above. Thus I propose to just remove that (in the meta data and in the text). 
Ok, by "and in the text" I assume you meant the "The following text
replaces the text in RFC3315 ..." at the beginning of Section 3? If
that's the case, I'm fine with that.

> I'll wait a few days to see if anyone has any comments to this thread before publishing the -02 revision.

<With my co-chair hat on>
Assuming no significant objections are raised to those changes proposed
by Bernie, I plan to wrap up this WGLC next week, let's say Wednesday.
If anyone has any concerns, please raise them before that day.

Tomek