Re: [dhcwg] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-dhc-relay-port-07: (with COMMENT)

Hi:

A DHCP Server does not need to listen on other ports. Only the relay that wants to use an alternative port for responses needs to listen on alternate port(s).

Regarding the updates issue, this is always a complex question - does a new DHCP option update these documents? I believe that updates should be used for required changes to a protocol (or corrections), not for extensions. It is too bad there is no “extends” tag to indicate extensions.

- Bernie

On Nov 13, 2017, at 11:47 AM, Mirja Kühlewind <ietf@kuehlewind.net<mailto:ietf@kuehlewind.net>> wrote:

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dhc-relay-port-07: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-relay-port/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I really think this document should update RFC2131 and RFC3315 as it proposed
concrete changes to both RFCs. The point is that, while the use of the
described mechanism and options is optional, I think the updates of the texts
apply more generally.

Further, I would think that if a DHCP server now has to listen on all ports for
incoming traffic, that this would raise additional security considerations.
However, didn’t think enough about it to name a specific threat.

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org<mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg