RE: [dhcwg] DHC WG charter

"Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com> Mon, 17 June 2002 14:24 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04731 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 10:24:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id KAA18096 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 10:24:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA17807; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 10:19:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA17776 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 10:19:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from zmamail04.zma.compaq.com (zmamail04.zma.compaq.com [161.114.64.104]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA04413 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 10:18:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tayexg12.americas.cpqcorp.net (tayexg12.americas.cpqcorp.net [16.103.130.103]) by zmamail04.zma.compaq.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA1C347AE; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 10:19:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tayexc13.americas.cpqcorp.net ([16.103.130.26]) by tayexg12.americas.cpqcorp.net with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.2966); Mon, 17 Jun 2002 10:19:19 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.0.5762.3
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] DHC WG charter
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 10:19:19 -0400
Message-ID: <9C422444DE99BC46B3AD3C6EAFC9711B022D2C28@tayexc13.americas.cpqcorp.net>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] DHC WG charter
Thread-Index: AcITtOen86mXyyUqRwypP1HvubVxtACU9l0A
From: "Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>
To: "Thomas Narten" <narten@us.ibm.com>, "Ralph Droms" <rdroms@cisco.com>
Cc: <dhcwg@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Jun 2002 14:19:19.0692 (UTC) FILETIME=[F85964C0:01C21609]
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by optimus.ietf.org id KAA17777
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Thomas,

Well I have the expertise to work on prefixes topic area so does Ralph for CPE and edge routers. Plus we can always add others.  Plus I think there are others here you may not be aware of with expertise your not aware of, which you did ask.

Lets assume we agree with you.  Where would you suggest this work exist in the IETF?

thanks
/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Narten [mailto:narten@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 14, 2002 10:59 AM
> To: Ralph Droms
> Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] DHC WG charter 
> 
> 
> Ralph,
> 
> Thanks for getting this discussion started.
> 
> > The working group has the following primary objectives:
> 
> > * Develop additional authentication protocols within the framework
> >   defined in RFC3118, along with other mechanisms to mitigate the
> >   threat of attacks on DHCP clients and servers:
> >   - New RFC3118 protocols to address improved key management and
> >     improved scalability
> 
> I think the charter should be more specific here. What new protocols
> are needed? What problems need to be solved? The above is just a blank
> check to do unspecified work (not good).
> 
> >   - Provide security for messages passed between relay agents and
> >     servers
> 
> A good deliverable.
> 
> >   - Consider solutions for specific threats such as use of nonce
> >     identifier to defend against DoS attacks through FORCERENEW from
> >     off-path attackers
> 
> This might be good, but it seems like a prerequisite is to have a
> documented threat analysis. What are the primary threats to DHCP?
> Which ones are the ones that are important to address? Only then does
> it make sense to think about specfic solutions. 
> 
> > * Complete the specification of DHCP for IPv6 (DHCPv6):
> >   - Gain acceptance and publication of current Internet Draft as
> >     Proposed Standard
> >   - Develop and publish specifications for options and other
> >     extensions to DHCPv6, including those already published as
> >     Internet Drafts:
> >     + "DNS Configuration Options for DHCPv6"
> >     + "Time Configuration Options for DHCPv6"
> >     + "NIS Configuration Options for DHCPv6"
> >     + "DSTM Ports Option for DHCPv6", "DSTM Options for DHCPv6"
> >     + "Load Balancing for DHCPv6"
> >   - Encourage independent implementations and conduct 
> interoperability
> >     testing
> 
> I don't think this needs to be called out in the charter. WGs don't do
> interoperability testing per se. But interoperability reports are
> needed for advancing documents along the standards track.
> 
> >   - Revise specification and publish for acceptance as 
> Draft Standard
> >     by 6/30/2002
> 
> >   - Develop extensions to DHCPv6 for prefix delegation, DNS
> >     configuration, etc.
> 
> I'm not sure I agree with this. I think the DHC needs to stick with
> its core expertise, which is the DHC core protocols, and reviewing
> options motivated from outside the WG from the perspective of being
> consistent with standard DHC operating practice.
> 
> But in terms of actually defining new options, I think that requires
> significant input AND MOTIVATION from the customers of the option. In
> the case of Prefix delegation, that seems like a broader problem,
> where a DHC solution might well be appropriate. But I don't think this
> should be driven by the DHC WG, since the problem is not inherently a
> DHC problem.
> 
> Does the DHC WG really have the expertise to do the prefix delegation
> work? I wouldn't immediately think so. They do have  expertise to
> review any options once it is determined what the prefix delegation
> solution requires.
> 
> So, I think better charter wording would say that the WG will review
> options whose impetus comes from other WGs. A number of the specific
> options mentioned above are really motivated by other WGs.
> 
> > * Revise and submit the DHCP specification for acceptance as a Full
> >   Standard
> 
> I guess I'm a cynic. If there is no realistic plan for doing this, I'd
> say leave it out of the charter.
> 
> The charter should not be a kitchen sink of all possible work
> items. It should capture the priority items the WG will work on over
> the next 12 months. One can easily recharter if something interesting
> pops up that should get attention.
> 
> > * Complete the specification and publish work in progress as
> >   standards:
> >   - Failover protocol
> >   - DHCP/DDNS interaction
> >   - SNMP MIB
> 
> What is the MIB item? Do we really need it?
> 
> >   - Host name options
> >   - Other client and relay agent options
> 
> > * Review new options for DHCP, as deemed appropriate by the working
> >   group and/or the Internet area directors
> 
> Thomas
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> 

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