From Ted.Lemon@nominum.com Mon Jun 11 08:44:55 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B798221F85AF for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 08:44:55 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -105.11 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.11 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_05=-1.11, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2Aoip4KqZs79 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 08:44:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og127.obsmtp.com (exprod7og127.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7A4521F8620 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 08:44:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob127.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT9YSddLWOQ2lFaUFeZ/fLRXQ2PmPyU90@postini.com; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 08:44:54 PDT Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81CED1B8320 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 08:44:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 72DA6190043 for ; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 08:44:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com) Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.131]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Mon, 11 Jun 2012 08:44:53 -0700 From: Ted Lemon To: DHC WG Thread-Topic: Meetecho support for IETF 84? Thread-Index: AQHNR+kk0hTA+iZyYUO0MZ7vl0HGMQ== Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:44:53 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <291034DAABBDBA4B96C27F64E7BF6E95@nominum.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [dhcwg] Meetecho support for IETF 84? X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 15:44:55 -0000 Is there any interest in a live webcast of the DHC wg meeting in Vancouver?= We've never done this before, and I've never asked, but it's at least pot= entially on offer, so if there are people who can't attend in Vancouver but= would like to participate, please let us know. From internet-drafts@ietf.org Thu Jun 14 07:18:34 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C68F721F86D9; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 07:18:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NGkFt1+KPfvK; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 07:18:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C85121F85DF; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 07:18:34 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.20 Message-ID: <20120614141834.11284.71394.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 07:18:34 -0700 Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org Subject: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-forcerenew-nonce-07.txt X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:18:35 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Dynamic Host Configuration Working Group = of the IETF. Title : Forcerenew Nonce Authentication Author(s) : David Miles Wojciech Dec James Bristow Roberta Maglione Filename : draft-ietf-dhc-forcerenew-nonce-07.txt Pages : 13 Date : 2012-06-14 Abstract: Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) FORCERENEW allows for the reconfiguration of a single host by forcing the DHCP client into a Renew state on a trigger from the DHCP server. In Forcerenew Nonce Authentication the server sends a nonce to the client in the initial DHCP ACK that is used for subsequent validation of a FORCERENEW message. This document updates RFC 3203. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-forcerenew-nonce There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-forcerenew-nonce-07 A diff from previous version is available at: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-dhc-forcerenew-nonce-07 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From internet-drafts@ietf.org Tue Jun 19 00:30:08 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C31E21F85F1; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 00:30:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.414 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.414 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.185, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id r9WbH0x5dZB3; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 00:30:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B986721F85EF; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 00:30:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: internet-drafts@ietf.org To: i-d-announce@ietf.org X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.20 Message-ID: <20120619073007.7309.43950.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 00:30:07 -0700 Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org Subject: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines-08.txt X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 07:30:08 -0000 A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts director= ies. This draft is a work item of the Dynamic Host Configuration Working Group = of the IETF. Title : Guidelines for Creating New DHCPv6 Options Author(s) : David W. Hankins Tomasz Mrugalski Marcin Siodelski Sheng Jiang Suresh Krishnan Filename : draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines-08.txt Pages : 17 Date : 2012-06-19 Abstract: This document provides guidance to prospective DHCPv6 Option developers to help them creating option formats that are easily adoptable by existing DHCPv6 software. The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines There's also a htmlized version available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines-08 A diff from previous version is available at: http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=3Ddraft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines-08 Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at: ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/ From simon.perreault@viagenie.ca Tue Jun 19 07:16:24 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 927AD21F85E6 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 07:16:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I2ZJXVsnoQSs for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 07:16:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000:226:55ff:fe57:14db]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E911321F85E0 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 07:16:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ringo.viagenie.ca (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:c064:8055:8e79:d19d:5713]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 29FBE400AB; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:16:23 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4FE089B6.8090704@viagenie.ca> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:16:22 -0400 From: Simon Perreault User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines@tools.ietf.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org Subject: [dhcwg] Questions on draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines-08 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 14:16:24 -0000 Hi, I read draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines-08 as a possible consumer (writing a draft about a new DHCPv6 option). I have two questions... 1. The draft doesn't talk about options with size zero. Are they good or evil? I would have expected a subsection of section 5 to talk about them. There's one in RFC3315: OPTION_RAPID_COMMIT. 2. Section 14 contains the following: It is a frequent mistake of option draft authors, then, to create text that implies that a server will simply provide the new option, and clients will digest it. Generally, it's best to also specify that clients MUST place the new option code on the relevant list option, clients MAY include the new option in their packets to servers with hints as to values they desire, and servers MAY respond with the option contents (if they have been so configured). I can't parse the second sentence. What should I write in my draft? I guess it should start with "Clients MUST place the new option code ..." but I can't finish the sentence. What's the relevant list option? (My new option has no value, as you might have guessed.) Other than that, everything was clear. Thanks, Simon -- DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca NAT64/DNS64 open-source --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca STUN/TURN server --> http://numb.viagenie.ca From volz@cisco.com Tue Jun 19 07:26:47 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7675D21F84DE for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 07:26:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -7.136 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.136 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AGIOH7xAOMxw for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 07:26:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B71A21F84E6 for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 07:26:46 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=volz@cisco.com; l=2118; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1340116006; x=1341325606; h=subject:references:content-transfer-encoding:from: in-reply-to:message-id:date:to:cc:mime-version; bh=nmfM49wnWtV9GU8SzryqYRwI8UqUI/dLisUBrRwlPqE=; b=dgSSnZJSTejexFBdulDOhRhZt9rmWVzmJYpavHaZqTSJctwXUHSMcPne /7kA4nLuFD829aN41v3X23yeuYKIQ4tE9oDttkkZhlrsRYkWWBxhvbL1g 5xmGeyGcPVajDxCRKliGaDCV2j2DjfDYjwSbrikOIatD0oTTf/A21gtu2 E=; X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ar0HAGeL4E+tJXHA/2dsb2JhbABFtD2BFQKBB4IYAQEBAwEBAQEPARQTNAsFCwIBCEYnMAEBBBMih2QFC5kBoDyLL4U5YAOVJYESjQWBZoJ8 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,798,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="93785966" Received: from rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com ([173.37.113.192]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Jun 2012 14:26:46 +0000 Received: from xbh-rcd-102.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-102.cisco.com [72.163.62.139]) by rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q5JEQjnY023943; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 14:26:45 GMT Received: from xmb-rcd-101.cisco.com ([72.163.62.143]) by xbh-rcd-102.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 19 Jun 2012 09:26:45 -0500 Received: from 72.163.62.136 ([72.163.62.136]) by XMB-RCD-101.cisco.com ([72.163.62.143]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 14:26:45 +0000 References: <4FE089B6.8090704@viagenie.ca> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" In-Reply-To: <4FE089B6.8090704@viagenie.ca> Message-ID: <788F6587-312B-4090-9926-901CF62FBC55@cisco.com> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:26:49 -0400 Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Questions on draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines-08 Thread-Index: Ac1OJ43zj9rsUVzSSn2Upcc+3b2S3w== To: "Simon Perreault" MIME-Version: 1.0 (1.0) X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Jun 2012 14:26:45.0755 (UTC) FILETIME=[8E0D74B0:01CD4E27] Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Questions on draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines-08 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 14:26:47 -0000 We have zero-length option for both v4 (rfc 4039) and v6 (3315) rapid commit= . So something should be said to allow these. Regarding that text, it means for v4 client must include option code in Para= meter Request List option (55) and for v6 in the Option Request Option (oro)= . While I can understand the shorthand, this is one area where the document b= est be explicit!! - Bernie Sent from my iPad On Jun 19, 2012, at 10:16 AM, "Simon Perreault" wrote: > Hi, >=20 > I read draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines-08 as a possible consumer (writing= a draft about a new DHCPv6 option). I have two questions... >=20 > 1. The draft doesn't talk about options with size zero. Are they good or e= vil? I would have expected a subsection of section 5 to talk about them. The= re's one in RFC3315: OPTION_RAPID_COMMIT. >=20 > 2. Section 14 contains the following: >=20 > It is a frequent mistake of option draft authors, then, to create > text that implies that a server will simply provide the new option, > and clients will digest it. Generally, it's best to also specify > that clients MUST place the new option code on the relevant list > option, clients MAY include the new option in their packets to > servers with hints as to values they desire, and servers MAY respond > with the option contents (if they have been so configured). >=20 > I can't parse the second sentence. What should I write in my draft? I gues= s it should start with "Clients MUST place the new option code ..." but I ca= n't finish the sentence. What's the relevant list option? (My new option has= no value, as you might have guessed.) >=20 > Other than that, everything was clear. >=20 > Thanks, > Simon > --=20 > DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca > NAT64/DNS64 open-source --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca > STUN/TURN server --> http://numb.viagenie.ca > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > dhcwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg From simon.perreault@viagenie.ca Tue Jun 19 07:57:26 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38FE721F85AC for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 07:57:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BaC7uFNw9tZs for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 07:57:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from jazz.viagenie.ca (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:8000:226:55ff:fe57:14db]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C439321F859F for ; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 07:57:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ringo.viagenie.ca (unknown [IPv6:2620:0:230:c064:8055:8e79:d19d:5713]) by jazz.viagenie.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3949D400AB; Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:57:25 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <4FE09354.6000506@viagenie.ca> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:57:24 -0400 From: Simon Perreault User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.1) Gecko/20120216 Thunderbird/10.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" References: <4FE089B6.8090704@viagenie.ca> <788F6587-312B-4090-9926-901CF62FBC55@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <788F6587-312B-4090-9926-901CF62FBC55@cisco.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org, draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines@tools.ietf.org Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Questions on draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines-08 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 14:57:26 -0000 On 2012-06-19 10:26, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote: > We have zero-length option for both v4 (rfc 4039) and v6 (3315) rapid > commit. So something should be said to allow these. > > Regarding that text, it means for v4 client must include option code > in Parameter Request List option (55) and for v6 in the Option > Request Option (oro). While I can understand the shorthand, this is > one area where the document best be explicit!! Thanks, much clearer. But doesn't the draft only apply to DHCPv6? Simon -- DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca NAT64/DNS64 open-source --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca STUN/TURN server --> http://numb.viagenie.ca From acooper@cdt.org Fri Jun 22 12:59:40 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 429C521F8602; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 12:59:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.413 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.413 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.186, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rDsD+5+0OpS7; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 12:59:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.maclaboratory.net (mail.maclaboratory.net [209.190.215.232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0180821F8601; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 12:59:38 -0700 (PDT) X-Footer: Y2R0Lm9yZw== Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by mail.maclaboratory.net (using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher AES128-SHA (128 bits)); Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:59:36 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: Alissa Cooper In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 15:59:35 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <3AE0A5BB-E5B7-46A3-A3D6-3F7C8FB84016@cdt.org> References: <20120531184851.30358.8816.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> To: Ted Lemon X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: GEOPRIV WG , "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" , James Polk , IETF Discussion Mailing List , Robert Sparks Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Last Call: (Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) IPv4 and IPv6 Option for a Location Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 19:59:40 -0000 Hi Ted, Some responses inline. On May 31, 2012, at 4:43 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > There are still a few problems with this draft. The first is that it = uses a nonstandard and somewhat odd encoding to deliver the URI and = Lifetime values. These should simply be delivered as separate options, = leaving out the whole Luritype complication. The argument might be = raised that the Luritype field provides some sort of future-proofing, = but this future-proofing can as easily be attained with another DHCP = option code, so it's unnecessary. My understanding is that the option is encoded this way both for = extensibility and because the Valid-For parameter is solely a property = of the URI. Surely this is not the only instance of a DHCP option with a = sub-option?=20 It may have been before I was paying attention, but I get the impression = that related ground has already been trod in DHC, given that it also = came up in GEOPRIV. = http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg08451.html >=20 > Secondly, this text ought to be expanded: >=20 >> The choice of the Valid-For value is a policy decision for the=20 >> operator of the DHCP server. Like location URIs themselves, it can=20= >> be statically configured on the DHCP server or provisioned=20 >> dynamically (via an out-of-band exchange with a Location Information >> Server) as requests for location URIs are received. >=20 > To: >=20 >> The choice of the Valid-For value is a policy decision for the=20 >> operator of the DHCP server. Like location URIs themselves, it can=20= >> be statically configured on the DHCP server or provisioned=20 >> dynamically (via an out-of-band exchange with a Location Information >> Server) as requests for location URIs are received. DHCP server >> operators are advised not to configure a valid-for lifetime that is >> greater than half the minimum configured lifetime for DHCP leases, >> since this could result in stale configuration information on the >> DHCP client and potential loss of service. >=20 I'm not sure the additional text is necessary given that there is an = entire paragraph explaining considerations for servers in setting the = Valid-For value. Furthermore, I don't see how "potential loss of = service" is possible. We're talking about a URI with an expiration. When = it expires, location recipients will no longer have access to the = client's location, but it otherwise doesn't affect recipients' ability = to use any "service" whatsoever. >=20 > Thirdly, this text is simply wrong, and indeed specifically = contradicted by RFC3396: >=20 >> Per [RFC2131], subsequent LocationURI Options, which are=20 >> non-concatenated, overwrite the previous value. >=20 > I don't think this is a huge problem, but I think the text should say = this: >=20 >> It is not meaningful to configure multiple LocationURI options. = DHCPv4 servers and clients conforming to RFC3396 will not permit this; = DHCPv6 servers and clients can be configured this way, but the behavior = when so configured is undefined. Therefore, DHCPv6 server operators = are cautioned not to configure more than one such option. Works for me. >=20 > Section 3.2 suggests that options shouldn't contain certain = potentially harmful values, but this is a toothless restriction, since = an attacker can simply ignore it. In order for it to be effective, = Section 3.2 should insist that DHCP clients reject forbidden URI = formats. Of course, this too is somewhat toothless, since any list of = forbidden URI formats will necessarily fail to mention any future = potentially harmful URIs that could arise. It would be better to list = which URIs _are_ permitted, and require the client to reject any URI = that is not permitted. The document is already set up to do this, but = doesn't _actually_ do it, so fixing this should be quite easy. In 3.3, I suggest replacing the following: "This section specifies which URI types are acceptable as a location URI scheme (or type) for this DHCP Option:" with "URIs carried by this DHCP Option MUST have one of the following URI = schemes:" Thanks, Alissa >=20 > Sorry for not catching all of this sooner=97the previous review of the = document was rudely interrupted by the Paris IETF meeting... :) >=20 > Aside from these objections, which I think are easy to address, I have = no problem with the document proceeding. From mellon@fugue.com Fri Jun 22 13:11:33 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F4EA21F8627; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 13:11:33 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kdwpohG7zGLT; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 13:11:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from toccata.fugue.com (toccata.fugue.com [204.152.186.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D843521F8625; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 13:11:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.1.10.17] (173-162-214-218-NewEngland.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.162.214.218]) by toccata.fugue.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CFD3E2381565; Fri, 22 Jun 2012 16:11:30 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: Ted Lemon In-Reply-To: <3AE0A5BB-E5B7-46A3-A3D6-3F7C8FB84016@cdt.org> Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 16:11:28 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <33AFBD35-FDCA-4424-9EB1-1903976085B0@fugue.com> References: <20120531184851.30358.8816.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <3AE0A5BB-E5B7-46A3-A3D6-3F7C8FB84016@cdt.org> To: Alissa Cooper X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: GEOPRIV WG , "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" , James Polk , IETF Discussion Mailing List , Robert Sparks Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Last Call: (Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) IPv4 and IPv6 Option for a Location Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 20:11:33 -0000 On Jun 22, 2012, at 3:59 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > My understanding is that the option is encoded this way both for = extensibility and because the Valid-For parameter is solely a property = of the URI. Surely this is not the only instance of a DHCP option with a = sub-option?=20 What's in the draft is not suboptions=97it's a whole special format = requiring new code on all servers that implement it. Suboptions don't = exist in DHCPv6=97just encapsulations of regular options, which I don't = think make sense here either. > It may have been before I was paying attention, but I get the = impression that related ground has already been trod in DHC, given that = it also came up in GEOPRIV. = http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg08451.html When the topic of suboptions first came up, it was because I proposed = them as an alternative to a complicated internal option structure with = lots of special code required in the server to implement. But given = that only one Location URI option is allowed, there's no need for = suboptions. > I'm not sure the additional text is necessary given that there is an = entire paragraph explaining considerations for servers in setting the = Valid-For value. Furthermore, I don't see how "potential loss of = service" is possible. We're talking about a URI with an expiration. When = it expires, location recipients will no longer have access to the = client's location, but it otherwise doesn't affect recipients' ability = to use any "service" whatsoever. You're right=97don't know how I missed that. >> Section 3.2 suggests that options shouldn't contain certain = potentially harmful values, but this is a toothless restriction, since = an attacker can simply ignore it. In order for it to be effective, = Section 3.2 should insist that DHCP clients reject forbidden URI = formats. Of course, this too is somewhat toothless, since any list of = forbidden URI formats will necessarily fail to mention any future = potentially harmful URIs that could arise. It would be better to list = which URIs _are_ permitted, and require the client to reject any URI = that is not permitted. The document is already set up to do this, but = doesn't _actually_ do it, so fixing this should be quite easy. >=20 > In 3.3, I suggest replacing the following: >=20 > "This section specifies which URI types are acceptable as a location > URI scheme (or type) for this DHCP Option:" >=20 > with >=20 > "URIs carried by this DHCP Option MUST have one of the following URI = schemes:" That's just as toothless. Unless the client MUST reject these options, = it MAY accept them. From Ted.Lemon@nominum.com Sat Jun 23 06:32:34 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DF6321F84D8 for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 06:32:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.351 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.351 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.248, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Rs82ynI9hbVw for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 06:32:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og109.obsmtp.com (exprod7og109.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.171]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E397621F8460 for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 06:32:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob109.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT+XFcK1Hw4uCNW9EKotZilYMD5FZ8F/L@postini.com; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 06:32:33 PDT Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 77AB81B830F for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 06:32:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6DC12190043 for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 06:32:32 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com) Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 06:32:32 -0700 From: Ted Lemon To: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" Thread-Topic: WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-ipv6 Thread-Index: AQHNUUSked8UJ6MEw0WI5U8YGXEyyw== Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 13:32:31 +0000 Message-ID: <1D295572-94F1-4382-A4D0-EB24933FC833@nominum.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <4DC36FBE89754A479535E2B1009069CD@nominum.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-ipv6 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 13:32:34 -0000 The authors of this draft believe that their work on it is complete and hav= e asked for a working group last call. The draft is a bit of transition technology to enable allocation of IPv4 ad= dresses for tunnel endpoints on an IPv6-only network using DHCP. It works= by relaying DHCPv4 packets over DHCPv6. The DHC working group is agnostic to whether this is the right way to set u= p tunnels; the question for the DHC working group is whether this is a good= DHCP protocol extension. Please review the draft for correctness and ind= icate whether or not you support advancing it. If you are in favor, pleas= e say so. If you aren't, please say so, and (ideally) explain why. We will evaluate consensus sometime on or after June 9. Thanks! From Ted.Lemon@nominum.com Sat Jun 23 06:33:26 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E107221F84D8 for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 06:33:26 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.412 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.412 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.186, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eIb24gONk7Bj for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 06:33:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og113.obsmtp.com (exprod7og113.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.179]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A9DA21F8460 for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 06:33:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob113.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT+XFpZhiNju6yUiyIehG8eSdTEq26+ap@postini.com; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 06:33:26 PDT Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4946E1B830F for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 06:33:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4331D190043 for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 06:33:25 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com) Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.131]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 06:33:25 -0700 From: Ted Lemon To: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-ipv6 Thread-Index: AQHNUUSked8UJ6MEw0WI5U8YGXEyy5cIXFYA Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 13:33:24 +0000 Message-ID: <1487E85F-6607-4D2A-8D9D-05A5CF962C94@nominum.com> References: <1D295572-94F1-4382-A4D0-EB24933FC833@nominum.com> In-Reply-To: <1D295572-94F1-4382-A4D0-EB24933FC833@nominum.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_1487E85F66074D2A8D9D05A5CF962C94nominumcom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-ipv6 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 13:33:27 -0000 --_000_1487E85F66074D2A8D9D05A5CF962C94nominumcom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Jun 23, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: We will evaluate consensus sometime on or after June 9. July 9. --_000_1487E85F66074D2A8D9D05A5CF962C94nominumcom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <3B76714EA64D174AA14BB011ADCB8C4C@nominum.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Jun 23, 2012, at 9:32 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
We will evaluate consensus sometime on or after June 9.

July 9.

--_000_1487E85F66074D2A8D9D05A5CF962C94nominumcom_-- From Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr Sat Jun 23 12:40:00 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F11D921F852D for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 12:40:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1AiGb1p9L-7D for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 12:40:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (givry.fdupont.fr [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:6d55:211:5bff:fe98:d51e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CB9821F851C for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 12:40:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q5NJdwsp066758; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 21:39:58 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr) Message-Id: <201206231939.q5NJdwsp066758@givry.fdupont.fr> From: Francis Dupont To: Ted Lemon In-reply-to: Your message of Sat, 23 Jun 2012 13:32:31 -0000. <1D295572-94F1-4382-A4D0-EB24933FC833@nominum.com> Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 21:39:58 +0200 Sender: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-ipv6 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 19:40:01 -0000 > We will evaluate consensus sometime on or after June 9. => July 9? I support the draft and have two comments: - I implemented it (it is used in Light weight Dual-Stack Lite demos) - if/when it will be adopted it should be fine to define a new DHCPv6 option giving DHCPv4-over-IPv6 agents (i.e., TRA or TSV), something like an array of IPv6 addresses should do the job... Thanks Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr (or fdupont@isc.org for the first comment) From Ted.Lemon@nominum.com Sat Jun 23 14:59:59 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ADBA221F8627 for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 14:59:59 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.449 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.149, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9LEfUjA8jjEi for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 14:59:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og121.obsmtp.com (exprod7og121.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A981F21F8625 for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 14:59:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob121.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT+Y8WdkNOfKF7e/sCMfA8cy0yvU13T4q@postini.com; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 14:59:58 PDT Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EA461B8097 for ; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 14:59:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2427A190043; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 14:59:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com) Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Sat, 23 Jun 2012 14:59:53 -0700 From: Ted Lemon To: Francis Dupont Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-ipv6 Thread-Index: AQHNUXf8AApYUr1FpE68i37IFYlbVJcI6XAA Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 21:59:53 +0000 Message-ID: <6E8D0B87-0B44-4F76-B043-2FD135FB4149@nominum.com> References: <201206231939.q5NJdwsp066758@givry.fdupont.fr> In-Reply-To: <201206231939.q5NJdwsp066758@givry.fdupont.fr> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6E8D0B870B444F76B0432FD135FB4149nominumcom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-ipv6 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 21:59:59 -0000 --_000_6E8D0B870B444F76B0432FD135FB4149nominumcom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Jun 23, 2012, at 3:39 PM, Francis Dupont wrote: - if/when it will be adopted it should be fine to define a new DHCPv6 option giving DHCPv4-over-IPv6 agents (i.e., TRA or TSV), something like an array of IPv6 addresses should do the job... Nice idea. Why wait? :) --_000_6E8D0B870B444F76B0432FD135FB4149nominumcom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Jun 23, 2012, at 3:39 PM, Francis Dupont wrote:
- if/when it will be adopted it should be fine to define a new DHCPv6
 option giving DHCPv4-over-IPv6 agents (i.e., TRA or TSV), something  like an array of IPv6 addresses should do the job...

Nice idea.   Why wait?   :)

--_000_6E8D0B870B444F76B0432FD135FB4149nominumcom_-- From Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr Sun Jun 24 10:10:03 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0789021F8596 for ; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 10:10:03 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eoVyxmfbcg8u for ; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 10:10:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (givry.fdupont.fr [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:6d55:211:5bff:fe98:d51e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 489E421F8595 for ; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 10:09:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q5OH9qOt044422; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 19:09:52 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr) Message-Id: <201206241709.q5OH9qOt044422@givry.fdupont.fr> From: Francis Dupont To: Ted Lemon In-reply-to: Your message of Sat, 23 Jun 2012 21:59:53 -0000. <6E8D0B87-0B44-4F76-B043-2FD135FB4149@nominum.com> Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 19:09:52 +0200 Sender: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-ipv6 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 17:10:03 -0000 In your previous mail you wrote: > On Jun 23, 2012, at 3:39 PM, Francis Dupont wrote: > - if/when it will be adopted it should be fine to define a new DHCPv6 > option giving DHCPv4-over-IPv6 agents (i.e., TRA or TSV), something > like an array of IPv6 addresses should do the job... > > Nice idea. Why wait? :) => if this could not delay the adoption of DHCPv4 over IPv6 I agree. Thanks Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr From Ted.Lemon@nominum.com Sun Jun 24 10:31:22 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EABA21F85F7 for ; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 10:31:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.474 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.474 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.124, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PgQ7Y+IRRs+J for ; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 10:31:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og108.obsmtp.com (exprod7og108.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.169]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A474421F85E1 for ; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 10:31:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob108.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT+dO6CjSdeoJ2LGWm/9zg6CF1JiF6ubI@postini.com; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 10:31:21 PDT Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 812011B808D for ; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 10:31:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49FF5190043; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 10:31:20 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com) Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 10:31:20 -0700 From: Ted Lemon To: Francis Dupont Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-ipv6 Thread-Index: AQHNUiwrAApYUr1FpE68i37IFYlbVJcKL1MA Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 17:31:19 +0000 Message-ID: <2D9C15D2-BA8F-4D54-85DC-7343DAFBBA7D@nominum.com> References: <201206241709.q5OH9qOt044422@givry.fdupont.fr> In-Reply-To: <201206241709.q5OH9qOt044422@givry.fdupont.fr> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_2D9C15D2BA8F4D5485DC7343DAFBBA7Dnominumcom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-ipv6 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 17:31:22 -0000 --_000_2D9C15D2BA8F4D5485DC7343DAFBBA7Dnominumcom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Jun 24, 2012, at 7:09 PM, Francis Dupont wrote: =3D> if this could not delay the adoption of DHCPv4 over IPv6 I agree. It would be independent, I think. It might have a normative or informativ= e reference to the DHCPv4 over IPv6 draft, but not vice versa. --_000_2D9C15D2BA8F4D5485DC7343DAFBBA7Dnominumcom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Jun 24, 2012, at 7:09 PM, Francis Dupont wrote:
=3D> if this could not delay the adoption of DHCPv4 over IPv6 I agree.

It would be independent, I think.   It might have a normative or = informative reference to the DHCPv4 over IPv6 draft, but not vice versa.

--_000_2D9C15D2BA8F4D5485DC7343DAFBBA7Dnominumcom_-- From Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr Sun Jun 24 10:43:05 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD6F221F861A for ; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 10:43:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ger+wbUpiURt for ; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 10:43:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (givry.fdupont.fr [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:6d55:211:5bff:fe98:d51e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDCB021F8619 for ; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 10:43:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q5OHh2WP046497; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 19:43:03 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr) Message-Id: <201206241743.q5OHh2WP046497@givry.fdupont.fr> From: Francis Dupont To: Ted Lemon In-reply-to: Your message of Sun, 24 Jun 2012 17:31:19 -0000. <2D9C15D2-BA8F-4D54-85DC-7343DAFBBA7D@nominum.com> Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 19:43:02 +0200 Sender: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-ipv6 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 17:43:05 -0000 In your previous mail you wrote: > => if this could not delay the adoption of DHCPv4 over IPv6 I agree. > > It would be independent, I think. It might have a normative or > informative reference to the DHCPv4 over IPv6 draft, but not vice > versa. => perhaps I misunderstood your idea: I thought about an addition in the current draft, of course a new one can't show this kind of issue. Thanks Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr From pengwu.thu@gmail.com Sun Jun 24 10:47:02 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 998EB21F8508 for ; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 10:47:02 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FdVkiseUeNof for ; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 10:47:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vc0-f172.google.com (mail-vc0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02E5921F8505 for ; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 10:47:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by vcqp1 with SMTP id p1so1818857vcq.31 for ; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 10:47:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=n8UXFINB3E1obGBAkbkZHoao56gDvwMhiFdJM8bFntU=; b=rMP3M9UbJ3T8bgYfLhKeFxXdetfzm37ZMr9eeXX9YOD9DnbqboKlp7kbnTRmiMqOLt B+9g6ST2pTPU05jkqn1OhuR7SHY1MuPCyT8nDhR0eIfzbGnDbZ46JMvTB1mqQ4ZSRRzm aJ3fXvdPYBWzWb21eW+/cHWILokuUv6IudKOH1sAR2O/iBmM1XH4qwyVykPZ4QYoFoYg +eV3dgJqKddcmWqF0KnVrx2ghRdH6qcdVAAZAr2A2AYIMbX+rpahP23FKcp6hjmuncWG 1pROakRBILWfiy9CWzKA3DZh+ER0nJKxDZ/yyqjOlSFJcItWyrWu9ivGqo9338pSGiol hJ8A== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.240.147 with SMTP id la19mr5860838vcb.47.1340560021445; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 10:47:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.28.84 with HTTP; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 10:47:01 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <2D9C15D2-BA8F-4D54-85DC-7343DAFBBA7D@nominum.com> References: <201206241709.q5OH9qOt044422@givry.fdupont.fr> <2D9C15D2-BA8F-4D54-85DC-7343DAFBBA7D@nominum.com> Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 01:47:01 +0800 Message-ID: From: Peng Wu To: Ted Lemon Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" , Francis Dupont Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-ipv6 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 17:47:02 -0000 Ted and Francis, Tomasz and I (well mostly Tomasz) have actually started something on this topic. There is a draft available at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mrugalski-softwire-dhcpv4-over-v6-option-0= 0. We did submit it to Softwire, though. Should it move to DHC? On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 1:31 AM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Jun 24, 2012, at 7:09 PM, Francis Dupont wrote: > > =3D> if this could not delay the adoption of DHCPv4 over IPv6 I agree. > > > It would be independent, I think. =A0 It might have a normative or inform= ative > reference to the DHCPv4 over IPv6 draft, but not vice versa. > > > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > dhcwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg > From Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr Sun Jun 24 11:41:15 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E7D721F8600 for ; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 11:41:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VZbBnY97Tm8N for ; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 11:41:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (givry.fdupont.fr [IPv6:2001:41d0:1:6d55:211:5bff:fe98:d51e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E09A21F85BB for ; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 11:41:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from givry.fdupont.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by givry.fdupont.fr (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q5OIfBu3050017; Sun, 24 Jun 2012 20:41:11 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from dupont@givry.fdupont.fr) Message-Id: <201206241841.q5OIfBu3050017@givry.fdupont.fr> From: Francis Dupont To: Peng Wu In-reply-to: Your message of Mon, 25 Jun 2012 01:47:01 +0800. Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 20:41:11 +0200 Sender: Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" , Ted Lemon Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-ipv6 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2012 18:41:15 -0000 In your previous mail you wrote: > Tomasz and I (well mostly Tomasz) have actually started something on > this topic. > There is a draft available at > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-mrugalski-softwire-dhcpv4-over-v6-option-00. > We did submit it to Softwire, though. Should it move to DHC? => perhaps. BTW it is a copy of the DS-Lite option and IMHO a FQDN is not the best solution for DHCPv4 over IPv6 (i.e., I really prefer an array of addresses). Regards Francis.Dupont@fdupont.fr From Ted.Lemon@nominum.com Tue Jun 26 00:22:25 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 377FA11E80A3 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 00:22:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.492 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.492 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.107, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XpTMdcLnQwPD for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 00:22:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7ob107.obsmtp.com (exprod7ob107.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.166]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FB1521F853F for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 00:22:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob107.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT+ljLxkkjnXKB9tsHgqnC3zw2otWPiqB@postini.com; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 00:22:24 PDT Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A9DF1B8291 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 00:22:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 105FF190043 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 00:22:23 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com) Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.131]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 00:22:11 -0700 From: Ted Lemon To: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" Thread-Topic: Call for agenda items for DHCwg Thread-Index: AQHNU2xm9zPDPkLkj0+WgW1vIg8rWg== Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:22:11 +0000 Message-ID: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <24027386ECCA5640AB0BE0502975F20D@nominum.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [dhcwg] Call for agenda items for DHCwg X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list Reply-To: "dhc-chairs@tools.ietf.org Chairs" List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:22:25 -0000 The time has come to begin forming the agenda for the DHC meeting at IETF i= n Vancouver. If you have any agenda items, please send email to dhc-chair= s@tools.ietf.org. Please say what draft you will be talking about, and pl= ease say who will be talking. Also please summarize why you want time on = the agenda (of course, you want to talk about your draft, but why is the wo= rking group going to want to hear about it?). Thanks! From Ted.Lemon@nominum.com Tue Jun 26 04:55:04 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD87D21F8606 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 04:55:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -106.506 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.506 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.093, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id x7m8qYrKsouu for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 04:55:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from exprod7og112.obsmtp.com (exprod7og112.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.177]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A99021F8617 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 04:55:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob112.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT+mjFlwXhRQO9KtbLGsREkxqQ/Wd7fiN@postini.com; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 04:55:03 PDT Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54B201B82B3 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 04:55:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44DB7190043 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 04:55:02 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com) Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 04:55:02 -0700 From: Ted Lemon To: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" Thread-Topic: Call for adoption: draft-halwasia-dhc-dhcpv6-hardware-addr-opt Thread-Index: AQHNU5KEDrOys2eyz0i2Aoad2FFKDg== Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:55:01 +0000 Message-ID: <45496742-3C07-491A-BCCA-43DC706639AA@nominum.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1AA81917ED8CFF498F3A0A53A6778058@nominum.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: [dhcwg] Call for adoption: draft-halwasia-dhc-dhcpv6-hardware-addr-opt X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:55:04 -0000 Folks, there was a call for adoption on the list in April, and a few people= spoke out in favor. Nobody spoke against. The call was somewhat inform= al, so I'm making it formal. If you object to adopting this as a working = group work item, please say so by Tuesday, July 3. There are already a nu= mber of voices in favor, so if I don't hear any objections the consensus wi= ll be in favor, but if you are in favor please say so anyway just in case t= here is opposition. Thanks! From tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com Tue Jun 26 05:05:34 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9C2C21F862F for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 05:05:34 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id utMhcjIwmjv8 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 05:05:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ee0-f44.google.com (mail-ee0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 033A621F8631 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 05:05:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: by eekd4 with SMTP id d4so1750899eek.31 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 05:05:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:x-tagtoolbar-keys:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=S3rVoacZ1LPKFLGteZsm6gvOfa7umg8gE3fsfiKOp/M=; b=CaOkvgS8RZafdHzPCwevLgrASNUv52jRpL1lx2KALtlMWQCBgWLxSfHzXywvFPSYSS WKs6w/i88ds+dkE0rIZMsO5GvDkGSKMfhHf8qx0MGA0b2UXOjJePrknQdp5ZpFIbMATw YnAsMgCpx/JkEnQq98uq1YAZ3nt3v70gGXdtEUo9d12s+T1C7K2dIdm+DjIxIyDSXZol AMtrEzNlDV2B2RLh5KljN5UPo7OS3OJCVclLaE5h3125TFVCgckN2O6iJU5VxL3osVal Wro/nOU2LOedkIMzuIprBwVsQemeSfkvk90r3H2Q/T/GOd6CcImzt/mSGx+qBXAjFWOJ 1hjQ== Received: by 10.14.185.137 with SMTP id u9mr3290181eem.220.1340712328027; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 05:05:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:470:6061:1:18f8:3d91:d2f0:47eb? ([2001:470:6061:1:18f8:3d91:d2f0:47eb]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u14sm148373964eem.4.2012.06.26.05.05.26 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 26 Jun 2012 05:05:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4FE9A580.5080909@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:05:20 +0200 From: Tomek Mrugalski User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120615 Thunderbird/13.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: dhcwg@ietf.org References: <45496742-3C07-491A-BCCA-43DC706639AA@nominum.com> In-Reply-To: <45496742-3C07-491A-BCCA-43DC706639AA@nominum.com> X-TagToolbar-Keys: D20120626140520841 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Call for adoption: draft-halwasia-dhc-dhcpv6-hardware-addr-opt X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:05:35 -0000 On 26.06.2012 13:55, Ted Lemon wrote: > Folks, there was a call for adoption on the list in April, and a few > people spoke out in favor. Nobody spoke against. The call was > somewhat informal, so I'm making it formal. If you object to > adopting this as a working group work item, please say so by Tuesday, > July 3. There are already a number of voices in favor, so if I > don't hear any objections the consensus will be in favor, but if you > are in favor please say so anyway just in case there is opposition. I support this work. +1 for adoption. Tomek From dankney@network1.net Tue Jun 26 05:07:04 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC24B21F8599 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 05:07:04 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 61XZA86bA24d for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 05:07:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zimbra.network1.net (zimbra.network1.net [74.115.181.69]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A01B21F8596 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 05:07:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from zimbra.network1.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zimbra.network1.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 925B55410DF; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 08:06:59 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 08:06:59 -0400 (EDT) From: perl-list To: Ted Lemon Message-ID: <1278047793.195739.1340712419518.JavaMail.root@network1.net> In-Reply-To: <45496742-3C07-491A-BCCA-43DC706639AA@nominum.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_195738_1720797306.1340712419518" X-Originating-IP: [74.115.181.97] X-Mailer: Zimbra 7.2.0_GA_2669 (ZimbraWebClient - GC19 (Mac)/7.2.0_GA_2669) Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Call for adoption: draft-halwasia-dhc-dhcpv6-hardware-addr-opt X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 12:07:04 -0000 ------=_Part_195738_1720797306.1340712419518 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I am most definitely in favor ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ted Lemon" > To: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" > Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 7:55:01 AM > Subject: [dhcwg] Call for adoption: > draft-halwasia-dhc-dhcpv6-hardware-addr-opt > Folks, there was a call for adoption on the list in April, and a few > people spoke out in favor. Nobody spoke against. The call was > somewhat informal, so I'm making it formal. If you object to > adopting this as a working group work item, please say so by > Tuesday, July 3. There are already a number of voices in favor, so > if I don't hear any objections the consensus will be in favor, but > if you are in favor please say so anyway just in case there is > opposition. > Thanks! > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > dhcwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg ------=_Part_195738_1720797306.1340712419518 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <= div style=3D'font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; colo= r: #000000'>I am mos= t definitely in favor

= From: "Ted Lemon" <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: "dhcwg@ie= tf.org WG" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 7:= 55:01 AM
Subject: [dhcwg] Call for adoption:   &nb= sp;    draft-halwasia-dhc-dhcpv6-hardware-addr-opt
<= br>Folks, there was a call for adoption on the list in April, and a few peo= ple spoke out in favor.   Nobody spoke against.   The call was so= mewhat informal, so I'm making it formal.   If you object to adopting = this as a working group work item, please say so by Tuesday, July 3.  = There are already a number of voices in favor, so if I don't hear any obje= ctions the consensus will be in favor, but if you are in favor please say s= o anyway just in case there is opposition.

Thanks!


______= _________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ie= tf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

<= br>
------=_Part_195738_1720797306.1340712419518-- From akostur@incognito.com Tue Jun 26 07:41:46 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C79AB21F85C0 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:41:46 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -5.976 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.976 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dz+b-GZJqULG for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:41:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from na3sys010aog110.obsmtp.com (na3sys010aog110.obsmtp.com [74.125.245.88]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 6A1AF21F8592 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:41:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-lb0-f171.google.com ([209.85.217.171]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys010aob110.postini.com ([74.125.244.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT+nKKLR4rckCMpc18/63vVHnaanTv7ZX@postini.com; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:41:45 PDT Received: by lbom4 with SMTP id m4so180709lbo.2 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:41:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=ixoMfe7Ip6tm+JeanmSgpe/VwijjWmKvYoYJc5ZpP7o=; b=pZadO0JJXA8gcS602j5csvSCPPRo3ZWlSj+tl1jdewM62fAVs/lxqO+ya1RdS31Eys J/htO9KKTZdlFtAYa+FYrci/efvsg8CQZ1WpbY3g1wSAVuIOYI04wdMFaQ2TGdBLfYOY HG1TuWAnkhb5iY4d2uBQwghe8y59mEdV/d07z8FM0XkVaKbIy8klc8hqhhwlEUPwzTpT 9raX91gh6yIKMoiFhMdvvNDbLrRs+JMXwq9+M5JiOqUPImSVRxAktCEQkQgirnRLZt70 j1iJaobf2ucdd4xPzMttmdYbVdOGx162l07iNxWXaFOWjuKTCa8UC/5QNnyyU0zKhhrr GEBA== MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.112.83.228 with SMTP id t4mr7921728lby.74.1340721702656; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:41:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.112.40.228 with HTTP; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:41:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1278047793.195739.1340712419518.JavaMail.root@network1.net> References: <45496742-3C07-491A-BCCA-43DC706639AA@nominum.com> <1278047793.195739.1340712419518.JavaMail.root@network1.net> Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:41:42 -0700 Message-ID: From: Andre Kostur To: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d040167f5d45cc504c36118c4 X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkg8NIzElmX5VxE+sJM818T6fGO9xBP3RxJBaMBjA4vVZzV6gjy4+c2IqV2a0DyICbyoRKl Cc: Ted Lemon Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Call for adoption: draft-halwasia-dhc-dhcpv6-hardware-addr-opt X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:41:46 -0000 --f46d040167f5d45cc504c36118c4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I am in favour. On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 5:06 AM, perl-list wrote: > I am most definitely in favor > > ------------------------------ > > *From: *"Ted Lemon" > *To: *"dhcwg@ietf.org WG" > *Sent: *Tuesday, June 26, 2012 7:55:01 AM > *Subject: *[dhcwg] Call for > adoption: draft-halwasia-dhc-dhcpv6-hardware-addr-opt > > > Folks, there was a call for adoption on the list in April, and a few > people spoke out in favor. Nobody spoke against. The call was somewhat > informal, so I'm making it formal. If you object to adopting this as a > working group work item, please say so by Tuesday, July 3. There are > already a number of voices in favor, so if I don't hear any objections the > consensus will be in favor, but if you are in favor please say so anyway > just in case there is opposition. > > Thanks! > > > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > dhcwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg > > > > _______________________________________________ > dhcwg mailing list > dhcwg@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg > > -- *Andre Kostur* Senior Product Design Engineer *P:* 604-678-2864 *E:* akostur@incognito.com *Toll-Free:* 1-800-877-1856 *F:* 604-678-2864 *VoIP:* sip:864@sip.incognito.com [image: Incognito Software Inc.] --f46d040167f5d45cc504c36118c4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I am in favour.

On Tue, = Jun 26, 2012 at 5:06 AM, perl-list <perl-list@network1.net> wrote:
I= am most=A0definitely=A0in favor

From: "Ted Lemon" <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG&quo= t; <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2012 7:55:01 AM
Subject: [dhcwg] C= all for adoption:=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0draft-halwasia-dhc-dhcpv6-hardware= -addr-opt


__________________________= _____________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
h= ttps://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg




--
<= tbody>
Andre Kostur<= /b>
Senior Product Design Engineer
P: 604-678-2864
E: akostur@incognito.com
Toll-Free: 1-800= -877-1856

F: 604-678-2864
VoIP: = sip:864@sip.incognito.com

3D"Incognito


--f46d040167f5d45cc504c36118c4-- From iesg-secretary@ietf.org Tue Jun 26 15:52:53 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DA4321F8548; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:52:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.536 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.536 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.063, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qqxlFtPLnhO6; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:52:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B116421F855D; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:52:52 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.21 Message-ID: <20120626225252.26154.34349.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 15:52:52 -0700 Cc: dhc mailing list , dhc chair , RFC Editor Subject: [dhcwg] Protocol Action: 'Forcerenew Nonce Authentication' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-dhc-forcerenew-nonce-07.txt) X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 22:52:53 -0000 The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Forcerenew Nonce Authentication' (draft-ietf-dhc-forcerenew-nonce-07.txt) as Proposed Standard This document is the product of the Dynamic Host Configuration Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Ralph Droms and Brian Haberman. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-forcerenew-nonce/ Technical Summary DHCP Forcerenew allows for the reconfiguration of a single host by forcing the DHCP client into a Renew state on a trigger from the DHCP server. In Forcerenew Nonce Authentication the server exchanges a nonce with the client on the initial DHCP ACK that is used for subsequent validation of a Forcerenew message. Working Group Summary This document received a thorough review by the WG, and had broad support. Document Quality I am not aware of any implementations. Personnel Ted Lemon is the Document Shepherd. Ralph Droms is the Responsible AD. From linux@thehobsons.co.uk Wed Jun 27 00:10:18 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25B1F21F85C2 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:10:18 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.599 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pCMeoLJLTz9i for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:10:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from patsy.thehobsons.co.uk (patsy.thehobsons.co.uk [IPv6:2001:470:1f09:baa::21]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5EF5711E80CB for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 00:10:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by patsy.thehobsons.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D31A29E8B for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 08:10:11 +0100 (BST) Received: from patsy.thehobsons.co.uk ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (patsy.thehobsons.co.uk [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vRyWeiTQ03ru for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 08:10:11 +0100 (BST) Received: from simon.thehobsons.co.uk (simons-macbookpro.thehobsons.co.uk [192.168.0.202]) by patsy.thehobsons.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1337D29E86 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 08:10:11 +0100 (BST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <45496742-3C07-491A-BCCA-43DC706639AA@nominum.com> References: <45496742-3C07-491A-BCCA-43DC706639AA@nominum.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 08:09:59 +0100 To: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" From: Simon Hobson Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Call for adoption: draft-halwasia-dhc-dhcpv6-hardware-addr-opt X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 07:10:18 -0000 I'm in favour too. -- Simon Hobson Visit http://www.magpiesnestpublishing.co.uk/ for books by acclaimed author Gladys Hobson. Novels - poetry - short stories - ideal as Christmas stocking fillers. Some available as e-books. From sthaug@nethelp.no Wed Jun 27 01:06:01 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB55621F8666 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 01:06:01 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.74 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.74 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.74, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pnx45xL2-26M for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 01:06:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (bizet.nethelp.no [195.1.209.33]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id B83FA21F8667 for ; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 01:06:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 99006 invoked from network); 27 Jun 2012 08:05:58 -0000 Received: from bizet.nethelp.no (HELO localhost) (195.1.209.33) by bizet.nethelp.no with SMTP; 27 Jun 2012 08:05:58 -0000 Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 10:05:57 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <20120627.100557.74664939.sthaug@nethelp.no> To: dhcwg@ietf.org From: sthaug@nethelp.no In-Reply-To: <45496742-3C07-491A-BCCA-43DC706639AA@nominum.com> References: <45496742-3C07-491A-BCCA-43DC706639AA@nominum.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Call for adoption: draft-halwasia-dhc-dhcpv6-hardware-addr-opt X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 08:06:01 -0000 > Folks, there was a call for adoption on the list in April, and a few people spoke out in favor. Nobody spoke against. The call was somewhat informal, so I'm making it formal. If you object to adopting this as a working group work item, please say so by Tuesday, July 3. There are already a number of voices in favor, so if I don't hear any objections the consensus will be in favor, but if you are in favor please say so anyway just in case there is opposition. In favor. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no From acooper@cdt.org Wed Jun 27 14:27:43 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 692C121F8661; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:27:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -102.262 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.262 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.337, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cvNjXYsCfwSC; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:27:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.maclaboratory.net (mail.maclaboratory.net [209.190.215.232]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E38121F865D; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 14:27:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Footer: Y2R0Lm9yZw== Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]) by mail.maclaboratory.net (using TLSv1/SSLv3 with cipher AES128-SHA (128 bits)); Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:27:39 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 From: Alissa Cooper In-Reply-To: <33AFBD35-FDCA-4424-9EB1-1903976085B0@fugue.com> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 17:27:38 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <2C9D555E-C18A-47D3-BB6A-B822B7957ABE@cdt.org> References: <20120531184851.30358.8816.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <3AE0A5BB-E5B7-46A3-A3D6-3F7C8FB84016@cdt.org> <33AFBD35-FDCA-4424-9EB1-1903976085B0@fugue.com> To: Ted Lemon X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084) Cc: GEOPRIV WG , "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" , James Polk , IETF Discussion Mailing List , Robert Sparks Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Last Call: (Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) IPv4 and IPv6 Option for a Location Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 21:27:43 -0000 Hi Ted, On Jun 22, 2012, at 4:11 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Jun 22, 2012, at 3:59 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: >> My understanding is that the option is encoded this way both for = extensibility and because the Valid-For parameter is solely a property = of the URI. Surely this is not the only instance of a DHCP option with a = sub-option?=20 >=20 > What's in the draft is not suboptions=97it's a whole special format = requiring new code on all servers that implement it. Suboptions don't = exist in DHCPv6=97just encapsulations of regular options, which I don't = think make sense here either. >=20 >> It may have been before I was paying attention, but I get the = impression that related ground has already been trod in DHC, given that = it also came up in GEOPRIV. = http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/geopriv/current/msg08451.html >=20 > When the topic of suboptions first came up, it was because I proposed = them as an alternative to a complicated internal option structure with = lots of special code required in the server to implement. But given = that only one Location URI option is allowed, there's no need for = suboptions. If we split it into two options, that eliminates the future possibility = of supporting multiple URIs per client. So we will need to take this = back to the GEOPRIV WG to make sure folks are okay with foreclosing = that. >=20 >=20 >>> Section 3.2 suggests that options shouldn't contain certain = potentially harmful values, but this is a toothless restriction, since = an attacker can simply ignore it. In order for it to be effective, = Section 3.2 should insist that DHCP clients reject forbidden URI = formats. Of course, this too is somewhat toothless, since any list of = forbidden URI formats will necessarily fail to mention any future = potentially harmful URIs that could arise. It would be better to list = which URIs _are_ permitted, and require the client to reject any URI = that is not permitted. The document is already set up to do this, but = doesn't _actually_ do it, so fixing this should be quite easy. >>=20 >> In 3.3, I suggest replacing the following: >>=20 >> "This section specifies which URI types are acceptable as a location >> URI scheme (or type) for this DHCP Option:" >>=20 >> with >>=20 >> "URIs carried by this DHCP Option MUST have one of the following URI = schemes:" >=20 > That's just as toothless. Unless the client MUST reject these = options, it MAY accept them. Okay, will add MUST reject language. Alissa From mellon@fugue.com Wed Jun 27 15:02:20 2012 Return-Path: X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F60B21F861D; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:02:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.598 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YtKpY4l9p5jS; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:02:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from toccata.fugue.com (toccata.fugue.com [204.152.186.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46B8F21F861C; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:02:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by toccata.fugue.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5B5092381615; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 18:02:16 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_687B87F2-BB1D-4C83-AB94-CE46AF5A00F2" From: Ted Lemon In-Reply-To: <2C9D555E-C18A-47D3-BB6A-B822B7957ABE@cdt.org> Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 00:02:14 +0200 Message-Id: <829DAD0D-D6CC-4BDB-A5D9-0B36FE7379BD@fugue.com> References: <20120531184851.30358.8816.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <3AE0A5BB-E5B7-46A3-A3D6-3F7C8FB84016@cdt.org> <33AFBD35-FDCA-4424-9EB1-1903976085B0@fugue.com> <2C9D555E-C18A-47D3-BB6A-B822B7957ABE@cdt.org> To: Alissa Cooper X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278) Cc: GEOPRIV WG , "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" , James Polk , IETF Discussion Mailing List , Robert Sparks Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Last Call: (Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) IPv4 and IPv6 Option for a Location Uniform Resource Identifier (URI)) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 22:02:20 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_687B87F2-BB1D-4C83-AB94-CE46AF5A00F2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 On Jun 27, 2012, at 11:27 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote: > If we split it into two options, that eliminates the future = possibility of supporting multiple URIs per client. So we will need to = take this back to the GEOPRIV WG to make sure folks are okay with = foreclosing that. The document already says that multiple URIs aren't valid, doesn't it? --Apple-Mail=_687B87F2-BB1D-4C83-AB94-CE46AF5A00F2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 If we split = it into two options, that eliminates the future possibility of = supporting multiple URIs per client. So we will need to take this back = to the GEOPRIV WG to make sure folks are okay with foreclosing = that.

The document already says = that multiple URIs aren't valid, doesn't = it?

= --Apple-Mail=_687B87F2-BB1D-4C83-AB94-CE46AF5A00F2--