Skip to main content

DHCPv4 Vendor-specific Message
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-vendor-message-01

Discuss


Yes

(Ralph Droms)

No Objection

(Magnus Westerlund)
(Pasi Eronen)
(Ross Callon)

Abstain

Lars Eggert
(Ron Bonica)

No Record

Alvaro Retana
Andrew Alston
Erik Kline
Francesca Palombini
John Scudder
Martin Duke
Murray Kucherawy
Paul Wouters
Robert Wilton
Roman Danyliw
Warren Kumari
Zaheduzzaman Sarker
Éric Vyncke

Summary: Needs a YES. Needs 10 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass.

Lars Eggert (was No Objection, Discuss) Abstain

Alvaro Retana No Record

Andrew Alston No Record

Erik Kline No Record

Francesca Palombini No Record

John Scudder No Record

Martin Duke No Record

Murray Kucherawy No Record

Paul Wouters No Record

Robert Wilton No Record

Roman Danyliw No Record

Warren Kumari No Record

Zaheduzzaman Sarker No Record

Éric Vyncke No Record

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) Discuss

Discuss [Treat as non-blocking comment] (2010-02-13)
I think adding a vendor-specific message to DHCP is a fine thing to do.

However, I have a relatively minor issue with the current text. I don't think it is correct to suggest that a purpose of this is experimentation. Experiments are not supposed to escape into the wider Net and an experimental message would be treated differently from a vendor-specific message.

While it is true that a vendor may choose to experiment under their enterprise number, the fact that it is an experiment is actually hidden from the world, and we don't consider listing all of the other uses to which this message might be put.

I would be happy to see the reference to experimentation removed from the Abstract and the Introduction.

(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) Discuss

Discuss [Treat as non-blocking comment] (2010-03-18)
I generally don't object to this document going forward, however I believe there are some minor points that needs to be addressed/discussed first:

1) In Section 3

   Clients and servers MAY chose to support this message; those that do
   not, MUST discard the message.  Relay agents SHOULD relay these
   messages as they would other DHCPv4 messages unless the relay agent
   understands the specific message and knows that the message was
   directed at it.

This sounds as if this document is trying to put requirements on implementations that are not compliant with this document.
Is this section just describes something which follows from DHCPv4
extensibility rules?

2) In Section 4:

   The option-data field MUST be encoded as a sequence of code/length/
   value fields of identical format to the DHCP options field and is
   identical to the option-data field of Vendor-Identifying Vendor
   Options [RFC3925].

This reference looks Normative to me.

   The option codes are defined by the vendor
   identified in the enterprise-number field and are not managed by
   IANA.  Option codes 0 and 255 have no pre-defined interpretation or

Are you talking about subopt-code here?

   format.  Each of the encapsulated options is formatted as follows:

3) In Section 4:

   Clients, relay agents, and/or servers supporting the Vendor Message
   Option MUST support [RFC3396].

This reference looks Normative to me.

4) Taking over Pasi's DISCUSS:

Section 1 says "New message codes are assigned through IETF Standards
Action". According to the registry and RFC 2939, the policy is
currently "IETF Consensus" -- is this just a typo, or is the intent to
change the policy?

Pasi also wrote: According to the WG chair (Ted Lemon, 2010-02-16), the intent was not to change the current policy, so in Section 1, "Standards Action" should be changed to "IETF Consensus" (or perhaps "IETF Review" in 5226 terms).

(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) Discuss

Discuss [Treat as non-blocking comment] (2010-02-18)
I view this document as effectively making it so no review is needed of new DHCP options. I don't think theWG charter allows this. I also view this as very bad thing given the goals of the IETF and would likely move to abstain. If the WG wanted to move to something that allowed a large code space with a easier review process, I would have no objects to that.

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) Discuss

Discuss [Treat as non-blocking comment] (2010-02-16)
Section 4 - the document specify that option-len and subopt-len are expressed in octets

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) Discuss

Discuss [Treat as non-blocking comment] (2010-02-17)
Should this document contain (or point to) more guidance that would encourage the use and development of interoperable DHCP options? It is currently missing any pressure to discourage the replication of already standardized behavior and encourage bringing common functionality through the standards process.

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) Discuss

Discuss [Treat as non-blocking comment] (2010-02-14)
  Two concerns were raised in the Gen-ART Review by Elwyn Davies
  that need to be addressed:

  s3, para 3: This paragraph contains weasel words about 'good
  networking practices' that 'MUST be used'.  This is untestable
  as it stands.  Is this anything more than dealing with non-replies,
  not flooding the network with repeats, and not hanging up if the
  partner never does answer?  Also, servers or clients that do not
  (yet) implement this capability do not have a defined behaviour
  when receiving this new type of message.  There is a assumption
  that they will be silently dropped without causing any problems.

  s7 and s4, next to last para: s4 specifies RFC 3396 as 'MUST support'
  This makes RFC 3396 a normative reference, not informative.  Arguably
  the last para of s4 makes RFC 3925 normative as well.

(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2010-02-18)
I do not object to this document going forward, but I support the
Robert Sparks Discuss about better guidance (and perhaps even some
mandatory rules).

Furthermore, upleveling a bit, I think we need to ask why we are doing
this document. Is this a companion document to the other proposals that
I am getting for ND option vendor extensions? When I pushed for the
actual reason to do them, the answer ended up being "because there are
some BBF extensions that we need but would probably not go through the
IETF". Some of such usage is useful stuff that simply has to be specified
and some is questionable (think DHCP authentication).

However, vendor specific options/messages are not the only way to do
these extensions. Here's a couple of other options:

- SDO-specific container for their things (and this cannot then easily
  be used by vendor extensions. i'm not sure I *want* vendor extensions
  to DHCP state machine to begin with, though).

- SDO-specific extension for particular functionality that we just 
  approve and hold our nose (and then this cannot be used for any
  extensibility later).

- Generic SDO extension

- Generic extension for vendors and SDOs

Your preferences may vary with regards to the best approach here. I'm
personally happiest with the first two options.

In any case, I would like to understand better the real drivers behind
this work.

(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Pasi Eronen; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Tim Polk; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2010-02-16)
(1) I support Adrian's discuss regarding experimentation.

(2) I support Alexey's discuss regarding section 3 imposing requirements on clients that do not
implement this specification.  If that is the intention, shouldn't this specification update 2131?

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) Abstain

Abstain ()