Re: [dhcwg] Open issues in DHCP FQDN, DHCID and DDNS-DHCP Related RFCs

[Stig Venaas <[e-mail]>]

Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
> Hi:
> 
> I have just submitted revised versions of the drafts. Copies of what I submitted are available at:
> 
> ftp://ftpeng.cisco.com/volz/draft-ietf-dhc-ddns-resolution-11.txt
> ftp://ftpeng.cisco.com/volz/draft-ietf-dhc-fqdn-option-12.txt
> ftp://ftpeng.cisco.com/volz/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-fqdn-04.txt
> ftp://ftpeng.cisco.com/volz/draft-ietf-dnsext-dhcid-rr-11.txt

These drafts are now available.  If you have any concerns about any of 
the changes made, please speak up now/ASAP.  In a week or two it may be 
too late to voice your concerns (at least I hope the drafts will now 
quickly pass through the IESG...),

Stig

> 
> Ralph had sent a list of 11 issues to the mailing list. And, then followed up with 19 more raised by Pekka Savola but that list of issues did not go to the DHC WG. Both emails are below so you can see the full list of 30 issues.
> 
> I believe I have addressed all of them.
> 
> Some key changes are that the DHCID RR now has an additional field to specify the digest type and we've switched to using SHA-256 instead of MD5.
> 
> We need to figure out what the next step is -- do we need another DHC / DNSEXT WG last-call or do we send these to the IESG directly?
> 
> If there is strong demand, I can develop diff files but as there were a lot of minor edits and changes to references, it likely will be rather large set of differences.
> 
> - Bernie
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] 
>>On Behalf Of Ralph Droms (rdroms)
>>Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 4:38 PM
>>To: [e-mail]; dhcwg
>>Cc: Olaf Kolkman; [e-mail]; Stig Venaas; Ólafur 
>>Gu>mundsson /DNSEXT co-chair
>>Subject: [dhcwg] Open issues in DHCP FQDN, DHCID and 
>>DDNS-DHCP Related RFCs
>>
>>Included below is a summary list of the open issues in this package of
>>documents:
>>
>>draft-ietf-dnsext-dhcid-rr-10.txt
>>draft-ietf-dhc-ddns-resolution-10.txt
>>draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-fqdn-03.txt
>>draft-ietf-dhc-fqdn-option-11.txt
>>
>>1.  Which DHCID RR encoding does an IPv4 client/server use (Brian
>>    Carpenter; Bernie has submitted text to resolve the issue)
>>2.  Editorial comment on resolution doc section 6.3.2 and AAAA records
>>    (Ted Hardie)
>>3.  s/byte/octet/g  (Scott Hollenbeck)
>>4.  Use example. or example.com. in examples (Scott Hollenbeck)
>>5.  s/signature/hash value/g (Russ Housley)
>>6.  In the resolution doc "security considerations" s/where or/whether
>>    or/ (Jon Peterson)
>>7.  Add an 8-bit algorithm identifier to the DHCID RR to
>>    support algorithm agility (Allison Mankin)
>>8.  Use of MD5 as opposed to a stronger hash function (Sam Hartman,
>>    Russ Housley)
>>9.  Hash agility (Sam Hartman, Allison Mankin)
>>10. Russ's comment that an attacker that has some knowledge of MAC
>>    addresses does not need to do lot of work. I think this can be
>>    addressed in security considerations by saying this is not privacy
>>    but just obfuscation (Russ Housley)
>>11. UTF-8 character set usage (Harald Alvestrand, gen-art)
>>
>>Issues 1-6 are strictly editorial and the document editors 
>>will revise the
>>documents to resolve those issues in the next revision.
>>
>>Issues 7-10 are all related to the hash algorithm specified 
>>in the documents
>>and the requirements for algorithm agility.  We will resolve 
>>those issues
>>through an e-mail discussion to follow.
>>
>>Issue 11 needs some clarification; Harald, I hope you'll kick 
>>off a separate
>>thread to discuss how to resolve this issue.
>>
>>- Ralph, for Olafur, Stig and Olaf
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Ralph Droms (rdroms) 
>>Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 2:28 PM
>>To: Bernie Volz (volz)
>>Cc: Stig Venaas; Olaf Kolkman; Ólafur Gu>mundsson /DNSEXT 
>>co-chair; [e-mail]
>>Subject: Re: Open issues in DHCP FQDN, DHCID and DDNS-DHCP 
>>Related RFCs
>>
>>Bernie - it appears there are several issues from Pekka that are not
>>included in the IESG Discusses (summary below)...
>>
>>On 2/8/06 7:57 AM, "Pekka Savola" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Thu, 2 Feb 2006, Ralph Droms wrote:
>>>
>>>>Included below is a summary list of the open issues in this package
>>>>of documents:
>>>>
>>>>draft-ietf-dnsext-dhcid-rr-10.txt
>>>>draft-ietf-dhc-ddns-resolution-10.txt
>>>>draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-fqdn-03.txt
>>>>draft-ietf-dhc-fqdn-option-11.txt
>>>
>>>Just checking, did you also check the following mails:
>>>
>>>http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg38995.html
>>>http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg38994.html
>>>http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg05678.html
>>
>>Summarizing these issues (starting from 12 after previous 
>>issues 1-11):
>>
>>(Substantive)
>>12. Interaction between DHCP/DHCID and non-DHCP clients
>>13. Server always decides policy on updating existing RRs (section
>>    6.3.2 of ddns-resolution)
>>14. Section 5 of ddns-resolution on DDNS RR TTLs is not 
>>germane to conflict
>>    resolution
>>15. Replace "DHCP client" with "node" in section 3 of ddns-resolution
>>16. Does section 6.1 of the DHCPv6 FQDN spec work with Rapid Commit?
>>17. In section 6 of the DHCPv6 FQDN spec (third bullet in 
>>list), how does
>>    the server know if it has the credentials before it tries 
>>the update?
>>18. Security considerations section of DHCPv6 FQDN spec 
>>should include a
>>    pointer to the security considerations section of ddns-resolution
>>19. Reword process to define new DHCID RR type codes to use RFC 2434
>>    process w/o modification
>>
>>(Editorial)
>>20. Use "example.com" in example FQDNs
>>21. In the Intro of ddns-resolution, client and server 
>>negotiate update of
>>    PTR RR as well as A and AAAA RRs
>>22. In section 4 of ddns-resolution, "DHCPREQUST" is 
>>DHCPv4-specific; add
>>    ref to corresponding DHCPv6 message
>>23. First sentence of section 6.5, ddns-resolution: s/is be/is to be/
>>24. Change refs to RFC 2131 and RFC 3315 to Normative in 
>>ddns-resolution
>>25. In DHCPv6 FQDN spec, s/prescence/presence/
>>26. In the Abstract and Intro of the DHCID RR spec, non-DHCP 
>>nodes can be
>>    involved in conflicts as well as DHCP clients
>>27. DHCID RR spec shold also include an example of DHCPv6 DHCID RR
>>    generation
>>28. Use RFC 3330 documentation prefix instead of 10.0.0.1 (10/8)
>>29. Remove citations from abstracts
>>30. Refer to both DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 in the Intro of the DHCID RR spec
>>
>>Seems like we ought to take a look at these issues and 
>>resolve them as well
>>as the IESG Discuss issues.
>>
>>- RALPH
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg



_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg