Subject: Use of option 61 in DHCP authentication

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 22:20:20 -0700

Bill - rev -14 of the draft calls for the use of option 61 in 
authentication protocol 1, with a reference an expired draft by Mike Henry, 
"DHCP Option 61 UUID Type Definition" 
<draft-henry-DHCP-opt61-UUID-type-00.txt>, which defines the syntax for 
expressing a UUID within option 61.

I don't see where it's necessary to use the UUID form of identification, 
unless you're trying to guarantee unique identification.  Would it be 
acceptable to change the draft to allow the use of any style of client 
identifier in option 61?

- Ralph

---

From: "Barr Hibbs" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 11:47:37 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From:  Ralph Droms
> Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2000 10:20 PM
>

...I agree:  we should not use an expired I-D as part of authentication
protocol 1:  if there is consensus that we need to improve the uniqueness of
the client identifier to be more "universal" for authentication and other
purposes, let's just tackle that issue directly.

--Barr

---

From: "William A. Arbaugh" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 21:31:15 -0400 (EDT)

I was trying for a unique id so that we could handle intra-domain at some
point in the future. Given that the uuid is not an RFC though, I have no
problems with saying option 61.  I would like to caveat it by explaining
to people it's good to use a unique.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Arbaugh			   
email:  [email-masked] 
web:    http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~waa
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Barr Hibbs" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2000 16:31:35 -0700

> From: William A. Arbaugh
> Sent: Friday, August 18, 2000 6:31 PM
>
...I agree as to the goal of uniqueness for intra-domain authentication, and
will look at all of these again to see if I can help with some suggested
wording....

--Barr