Bernie Volz | 1 Apr 01:06 2004
Picon

RE: Internet Drafts to be reviewed by the dhc WG

Hi:

Both of these drafts are IDENTICAL except that for the name of the
draft. I presume one should have been a DHCPv4 option
(draft-tran-midcom-dhcp-option-00.txt) and the other a DHCPv6 option?

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg-admin <at> ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-admin <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Ralph Droms
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 1:24 PM
To: dhcwg <at> ietf.org
Cc: margaret <at> thingmagic.com; narten <at> us.ibm.com; Melinda Shore
Subject: [dhcwg] Internet Drafts to be reviewed by the dhc WG

There are a couple of Internet Drafts under review by the midcom WG that
specify new DHCP options:

draft-tran-midcom-dhcp-option-00.txt
draft-tran-midcom-dhcpv6-option-00.txt

Based on our current charter, the dhc WG should consider collaborating
with the midcom WG on the review of these specifications; specifically,
the dhc WG should review the syntax of the options for adherence to DHCP
requirements and consistency with other DHCP options, while the midcom
WG will review the semantics associated with the options.

Is there any objection to taking on this review as a dhc WG work item,
pending acceptance of the documents by the midcom WG?  Note that the
(Continue reading)

Bernie Volz | 1 Apr 01:21 2004
Picon

RE: Internet Drafts to be reviewed by the dhc WG

It says "Entities using the Midcom Protocol need to know the presence of
Midcom middleboxes, such as firewalls and network address translators,
in order to enable communication across theses devices." in the abstract
of the draft. So, it looks like we're in for NAT with IPv6 ...

I think the WG should take up the issue of how best to handle options
that want to specify either or both domain names and IPv6 addresses. It
seems to me silly to have TWO options for every time this needs to occur
(as is the case in this midcom draft). And, this mechanism provides no
way to specify the preference between the two - order can be used within
each option to specify which to try first, but it can't be used across
the options. So, it is then left up to the draft (or implementor) to
pick which to use first.

The obvious answer would be to use a sub-option technique or a flag byte
before either an address or domain name. Something like:

	DHCP option (either 8-bits or 16-bits)
	Option length (either 8-bits or 16-bits)
	Encoding type (8-bits? - 0 for domain name, 1 for IP addresses)
	Encoding length (8 bits?)
	Data (either domain name or address)
	Encoding type (8-bits? - 0 for domain name, 1 for IP addresses)
	Encoding length (8 bits?)
	Data (either domain name or address)
	...

In the cases where only one type of encoding is used, this would cost 2
extra bytes. In the cases where multiple encodings are used, this would
either be the same length as the two-option method or potentially save
(Continue reading)

Ted Lemon | 1 Apr 02:05 2004

Re: Internet Drafts to be reviewed by the dhc WG

On Mar 31, 2004, at 5:21 PM, Bernie Volz wrote:
> I think the WG should take up the issue of how best to handle options
> that want to specify either or both domain names and IPv6 addresses.

I would rephrase this.   The working group in the past has taken up the 
issue of *whether* to send IP addresses or domain names, and we've 
historically decided to send IP addresses, so that the client isn't 
required to contain a resolver.   Supporting (and requiring all clients 
to support) both options is expensive.   So if the wg needs to discuss 
this again, I think the question should be whether to make it possible 
to send domain names instead of IP addresses, before we answer the 
question of how to do it.

If we don't reopen that question, I would suggest that we advise the 
midcom folks to always send an IP address, and never a domain name, and 
to not have two different options.   Otherwise, as you say, they have 
to specify how to choose, and whether it's okay to only send the domain 
name, and that whole can of worms.
Ralph Droms | 1 Apr 04:12 2004
Picon

Re: Internet Drafts to be reviewed by the dhc WG

OK - the *original* question was "Is there any objection to taking on this
review as a dhc WG work item, pending acceptance of the documents by the
midcom WG?"

Let me extend that question to ask for positive responses, as well - please
respond "yes" or "no" to the question "Should the dhc WG take on review of
draft-tran-midcom-dhcp-option-00.txt and
draft-tran-midcom-dhcpv6-option-00.txt, pending acceptance of the documents
by the midcom WG?"

- Ralph
S. Daniel Park | 1 Apr 04:47 2004

RE: Internet Drafts to be reviewed by the dhc WG


I second " YES"

I believe that kind of drafts (all DHCP Options) should be 
considered in the DHC WG, regarding technical aspect 
related WGs have to carefully review them of course.  

Regards

- Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
- Mobile Platform Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcwg-admin <at> ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-admin <at> ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Ralph Droms
> Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 11:12 AM
> To: dhcwg <at> ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Internet Drafts to be reviewed by the dhc WG
> 
> 
> OK - the *original* question was "Is there any objection to 
> taking on this
> review as a dhc WG work item, pending acceptance of the 
> documents by the
> midcom WG?"
> 
> Let me extend that question to ask for positive responses, as 
> well - please
> respond "yes" or "no" to the question "Should the dhc WG take 
> on review of
(Continue reading)

Ralph Droms | 1 Apr 05:22 2004
Picon

Re: Internet Drafts to be reviewed by the dhc WG

We'll leave the interesting decision about "IPv6 NAT: threat or menace?" to 
the midcom, ipv6 and other WGs.  The dhc WG will focus on the syntax of the 
options and the mechanics of how the configuration data is passed through 
DHCP messages.

- Ralph

At 09:50 PM 3/31/2004 +0100, Tim Chown wrote:
>On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 01:24:05PM -0500, Ralph Droms wrote:
> > There are a couple of Internet Drafts under review by the midcom WG that
> > specify new DHCP options:
> >
> > draft-tran-midcom-dhcpv6-option-00.txt
>
>So this one assumes that IPv6 NATs exist and midcom will handle IPv6 NAT
>traversal?  Or s midcom for IPv6 a means to configure the middlebox for
>other ALG or firewall purposes?
>
>Luckily I don't think Keith Moore is on the dhc WG list :)
>
>Tim
S. Daniel Park | 1 Apr 06:05 2004

RE: RE: [DHCP Option for Configuring IPv6-over-IPv4 Tunnels]*DRAFT* minutes from WG meeting in Seoul (2nd try)


Hi Bernie

Your comments look good for me. 
I will reflect them to the next version soon.

Regarding the scope of DHC WG, I am also 
wondering this draft can be accepted as work
item. As I indicated, this draft was already
reviewed by V6OPS WG...

Regards.

- Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
- Mobile Platform Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernie Volz [mailto:volz <at> cisco.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, April 01, 2004 7:47 AM
> To: 'S. Daniel Park'
> Cc: dhcwg <at> ietf.org
> Subject: RE: [dhcwg] RE: [DHCP Option for Configuring 
> IPv6-over-IPv4 Tunnels]*DRAFT* minutes from WG meeting in 
> Seoul (2nd try)
> 
> 
> Hi:
> 
> I don't understand:
>      In the above diagram, CTEP Addr is 32-bit integers 
(Continue reading)

Tim Chown | 1 Apr 11:02 2004
Picon

Re: Internet Drafts to be reviewed by the dhc WG

Sorry :)

Yes, if it is going to happen, it should have dhc WG eyes over it.

On Wed, Mar 31, 2004 at 09:12:20PM -0500, Ralph Droms wrote:
> OK - the *original* question was "Is there any objection to taking on this
> review as a dhc WG work item, pending acceptance of the documents by the
> midcom WG?"
> 
> Let me extend that question to ask for positive responses, as well - please
> respond "yes" or "no" to the question "Should the dhc WG take on review of
> draft-tran-midcom-dhcp-option-00.txt and
> draft-tran-midcom-dhcpv6-option-00.txt, pending acceptance of the documents
> by the midcom WG?"
> 
> - Ralph
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg <at> ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
Bernie Volz | 1 Apr 16:18 2004
Picon

RE: Internet Drafts to be reviewed by the dhc WG

No objection - we should review the options for consistency with DHCP.

I'm also not sure why there is a need to ask as this is clearly in the
WG's current charter:

The DHC WG is responsible for reviewing (and sometimes developing)
DHCP options or other extensions (for both IPv4 and IPv6). The DHC WG
is expected to review all proposed extensions to DHCP to ensure that
they are consistent with the DHCP specification and other option
formats, that they do not duplicate existing mechanisms, etc. The DHC
WG will not (generally) be responsible for evaluating the semantic
content of proposed options. The DHC WG will not adopt new proposals
for extensions to DHCP as working group documents without first
coordinating with other relevant working groups and determining who
has the responsibility for reviewing the semantic content of an
option.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg-admin <at> ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-admin <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Ralph Droms
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 9:12 PM
To: dhcwg <at> ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Internet Drafts to be reviewed by the dhc WG

OK - the *original* question was "Is there any objection to taking on
this review as a dhc WG work item, pending acceptance of the documents
by the midcom WG?"

(Continue reading)

S. Daniel Park | 3 Apr 04:29 2004

RE: Drafts ready for WG last call


Is there any expressed opposition for progressing these draft ?

- Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
- Mobile Platform Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcwg-admin <at> ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-admin <at> ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Ralph Droms
> Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 12:52 AM
> To: dhcwg <at> ietf.org
> Subject: [dhcwg] Drafts ready for WG last call
> 
> 
> Several drafts were considered for dhc WG last call at the WG 
> meeting in
> Seoul.  I'm writing to confirm consensus for WG last call on 
> these drafts.
> Please respond (affirm, comment, disagree selectively) to the 
> dhcwg mailing
> list about initiating a WG last call on the following drafts:
> 
> 
>    DHCP Option for Proxy Server Configuration
>    <draft-ietf-dhc-proxyserver-opt-00>
> 
>    Vendor-Identifying Vendor Options for DHCPv4
>    <draft-ietf-dhc-vendor-01>
> 
>    Node-Specific Client Identifiers for DHCPv4
(Continue reading)


Gmane