Re: PXELinux.

I'd like to ask that this document be accepted as a WG Item.

  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dhankins-pxelinux-01.txt

--

-- 
David W. Hankins		"If you don't do it right the first time,
Software Engineer			you'll just have to do it again."
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.		-- Jack T. Hankins

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

Re: PXELinux.

David W. Hankins wrote:
> I'd like to ask that this document be accepted as a WG Item.
> 
>   http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dhankins-pxelinux-01.txt
> 

I just re-read this item, and have a few notes:

1. The standard spelling is PXELINUX, all caps.  This is for historical
reasons, but has stuck around.

2. With regards to option 210: if this is adopted, it needs to be noted
for any new option if it is subject to having option 210 prepended or
not.  Option 209 *is* subject to 210.

3. There is an additional justification for option 210.  It does provide
a method to allow the administrator to let PXELINUX use the standard
discovery algorithm for the configuration file, but in a specific area
of the TFTP server.  It's thus, in addition to other things, a "softer"
form of the configuration file search option.

However, by far its most common use is really to select one of multiple
full configuration trees, as described in the document.

	-hpa

*DRAFT* agenda for dhc WG meeting

                          DHC WG agenda - IETF 66
                        0900-1130 2006-07-11 (Tue)
                   (Last revised 2006-07-06 08:13 AM ET)
                   -------------------------------------

Administrivia                                   Venaas/Droms     10 minutes
  Agenda bashing; blue sheets; scribe; Jabber scribe

Last call requests                              Venaas/Droms     05 minutes

DHCPv6 Relay Agent Echo Request Option          B. Volz          05 minutes
  <draft-szeng-dhc-dhcpv6-ero-01>
  Accept as WG work item?

DHCP options for PANA Authentication Agents     L. Morand        10 minutes
  <draft-ietf-dhc-paa-option-02>
  Ready for WG last call?
  (Note that -03 rev will drop FQDN as an option)

Extension of DHCP LEASEQUERY                    B. Joshi         15 minutes
  <draft-joshi-dhcp-lease-query-ext-00>
  Review and feedback

DHCP for MANET Autoconf and NETLMM              F. Templin       20 minutes
  <draft-templin-autoconf-dhcp-01>
  <draft-templin-autoconf-netlmm-dhcp-02>

DHCPv4 Relay Agent Flags Suboption              M. Normoyle      10 minutes
  <draft-ietf-dhc-relay-agent-flags-00>
  Ready for WG last call?

Agenda and presentations for dhc WG meeting

....are availablele at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/meeting_materials.cgi?meeting_num=66

Scroll down to "dhc"

- Ralph

Re: PXELinux.

On Wed, Jul 05, 2006 at 09:54:40PM -0700, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> I just re-read this item, and have a few notes:
> 
> 1. The standard spelling is PXELINUX, all caps.  This is for historical
> reasons, but has stuck around.

I know 'PXE' and I know 'Linux', so I just glued those together.  The
document name has to be all lowercase, but I've updated my use of the
name within the document for consistency.

I also found one use of 'PXElinux'.

> 2. With regards to option 210: if this is adopted, it needs to be noted
> for any new option if it is subject to having option 210 prepended or
> not.  Option 209 *is* subject to 210.
> 
> 3. There is an additional justification for option 210.  It does provide
> a method to allow the administrator to let PXELINUX use the standard
> discovery algorithm for the configuration file, but in a specific area
> of the TFTP server.  It's thus, in addition to other things, a "softer"
> form of the configuration file search option.

Good catch, thanks Peter.

I've revved the draft and provided clear language on server and client
behaviour expectations, incorporating (I think) these two points.

I've also fixed some typos and cleaned up the language about the parameter
request list.

I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dhc-proxyserver-opt-05.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Dynamic Host Configuration Working Group of the IETF.

	Title		: DHCP Option for Proxy Server Configuration
	Author(s)	: S. Balasubramanian, et al.
	Filename	: draft-ietf-dhc-proxyserver-opt-05.txt
	Pages		: 8
	Date		: 2006-7-10
	
This document defines a new Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol 
DHCP) option, which can be used to configure the TCP/IP host's  
Proxy Server configuration for standard protocols like HTTP,FTP, 
NNTP,SOCKS, Gopher, SLL and etc.  Proxy Server provides controlled 
and efficient access to the Internet by access control mechanism  
for different types of user requests and caching frequently accessed 
information (Web pages and possibly files that might have been 
downloaded using FTP and other protocols).

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-proxyserver-opt-05.txt

To remove yourself from the I-D Announcement list, send a message to 
i-d-announce-request <at> ietf.org with the word unsubscribe in the body of the message.  
You can also visit https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/I-D-announce 
to change your subscription settings.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP. Login with the username
"anonymous" and a password of your e-mail address. After logging in,
type "cd internet-drafts" and then
	"get draft-ietf-dhc-proxyserver-opt-05.txt".

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dhc-proxyserver-opt-05.txt

What benefit does the MD5 hash give?

According to the draft, this is an MD5 hash of the PAC URI.   If a 
man-in-the-middle desired to change the PAC URI, it could just as easily 
rewrite the MD5 hash too, negating whatever "security" it may have provided.

Now if this was the MD5 hash of the PAC file that is going to be 
obtained via the specified URI, that may provide some benefit against 
someone replacing the PAC file.

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dhc-proxyserver-opt-05.txt

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dhc-proxyserver-opt-05.txt

Michael Alexander wrote:
> checksum-type integrity of the uri - not to protect against (mim) attacks
>

So why does this option need this extra protection from random 
corruption of the UDP packet?  As opposed to pretty much every other 
option that you can send back to a client?

Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dhc-proxyserver-opt-05.txt

that's why it is optional

On 11.07.2006, at 06:18, Andre Kostur wrote:

> Michael Alexander wrote:
>> checksum-type integrity of the uri - not to protect against (mim)  
>> attacks
>>
>
> So why does this option need this extra protection from random  
> corruption of the UDP packet?  As opposed to pretty much every  
> other option that you can send back to a client?
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg <at> ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

Best Regards,

Dr. Michael Alexander
WU Wien Dept. of Information Systems
malexand <at> wu-wien.ac.at / +43.1.31336.4467