RE: [dhcwg] dhc wg last call on dhcpv6-reconfigure-rebind

"Bernie Volz \(volz\)" <volz@cisco.com> Tue, 06 March 2007 13:52 UTC

Return-path: <dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HOa5f-0000Q9-Eb; Tue, 06 Mar 2007 08:52:31 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HOa5d-0000PV-UM for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Mar 2007 08:52:29 -0500
Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HOa5c-0006B6-Kd for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 06 Mar 2007 08:52:29 -0500
Received: from sj-dkim-8.cisco.com ([171.68.10.93]) by sj-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 06 Mar 2007 05:52:28 -0800
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.14,254,1170662400"; d="scan'208"; a="397504398:sNHT45044152"
Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (sj-core-4.cisco.com [171.68.223.138]) by sj-dkim-8.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l26DqRTQ006116 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Mar 2007 05:52:27 -0800
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id l26DqOxZ026986 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Mar 2007 13:52:27 GMT
Received: from xmb-rtp-20a.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.15]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 6 Mar 2007 08:52:26 -0500
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] dhc wg last call on dhcpv6-reconfigure-rebind
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 08:52:03 -0500
Message-ID: <8E296595B6471A4689555D5D725EBB21037002AF@xmb-rtp-20a.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <45E4383A.6080406@uninett.no>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] dhc wg last call on dhcpv6-reconfigure-rebind
Thread-Index: Acdad2CG0pnaLlO+RT26/KyLNQU2HAFM6nTA
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" <rdroms@cisco.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Mar 2007 13:52:26.0272 (UTC) FILETIME=[AC6C4A00:01C75FF6]
DKIM-Signature: v=0.5; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=1684; t=1173189147; x=1174053147; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim8002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=volz@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Bernie=20Volz=20\(volz\)=22=20<volz@cisco.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[dhcwg]=20dhc=20wg=20last=20call=20on=20dhcpv6-reconf igure-rebind |Sender:=20; bh=JPha8exTFhBcPcth9GcrudZGQ9nDppZ2CyB8ccsD7sM=; b=oPfcSMjVpLj4qBFPuXNJU7UQ+CNA/vZv+GdGO3YlKKakHxTlBENfltnv1kfrpqoOCgAVwTgq zLWagDW9UmShBtyU4A6VWgeui8LmCqk87OQYb5xlS3Dxqa8iruAsMLR2;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-8; header.From=volz@cisco.com; dkim=pass (si g from cisco.com/sjdkim8002 verified; );
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 8b30eb7682a596edff707698f4a80f7d
Cc:
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: dhcwg.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org

Since it looks like this draft will need a revision, might we also want
to address the following issues?

1. When should a Client send a Reconfigure Accept (and the server
respond with Reconfigure Accept). RFC 3315 only mentions this for the
Solicit/Advertise and Request/Reply exchanges. Not for a Renew or
Rebind.

Should this be prohibited on a Renew/Rebind? Is it optional? If allowed,
what should a client do if the client previously received a Reconfigure
Accept (Request/Reply) but fails to in the Renew/Reply or Rebind/Reply
exchange? Should it disable Reconfigure support?

Note: Keeping the number of times that the Reconfigure Key is sent (in
the Auth option) to a minimum is a benefit since it makes it more
difficult for rogue clients to discover the key (possibly by snooping
traffic).

2. The text in RFC 3315 isn't clear about when the server sends a
Reconfigure Accept? In 18.2.1 (Receipt of Request Messages) in RFC 3315,
is written:
 
    The server includes a Reconfigure Accept option if the server wants
    to require that the client accept Reconfigure messages.
 
Does this apply even if the client has not sent a Reconfigure Accept
option in the Request message? That seems likely to be useless since the
client probably won't accept Reconfigure Accept (since if it did, it
would have sent the option in the Request).

In a brief private exchange with Ralph, he thought that a qualifying
clause is needed:

    The server includes a Reconfigure Accept option if the server wants
    to require that the client accept Reconfigure messages, if the
client
    sent a Reconfigure Accept option in the Request.

- Bernie

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg