DHCPv4 Lease Query by Relay Agent Remote ID
draft-ietf-dhc-leasequery-by-remote-id-09

[Ballot comment]
In section 4.1

  The DHCPLEASEQUERY message is typically sent by an access
  concentrator.

I really hate this type of language :-)

We can assume that you do not mean that most messages sent by an access
concentrator are DHCPLEASEQUERY messages.

You mean that most DHCPLEASEQUERY messages are sent by access
concentrators (not just by "an access concentrator" - I have an image of
some poor box in the Internet responsible for sending all the messages)

But missing from the description is a statement of who sends the other
(atypical) DHCPLEASEQUERY messages.

[Ballot comment]
#1) I support Tim's discuss.

#2) I can't parse this sentence in the abstract:

  RFC 4388 defines a mechanism for relay
  agents to retrieve the lease information from the DHCP server as and
  when this information is lost.

remove "as and"?

#3) Expand DSLAM.

#4) Section 4.7/8/9: Should the shoulds be SHOULDs?

[Ballot comment]
I can't parse this sentence in the abstract:

  RFC 4388 defines a mechanism for relay
  agents to retrieve the lease information from the DHCP server as and
  when this information is lost.

remove "as and"?

[Ballot discuss]
The security considerations state:

  This document does not introduce any new security concerns beyond
  those specified in the original lease query protocol RFC 4388
  [RFC4388] specifications.

RFC 4388's Security Considerations note that:

  DHCP servers SHOULD prevent exposure of location information
  (particularly the mapping of hardware address to IP address lease,
  which can be an invasion of broadband subscriber privacy) by
  employing the techniques detailed in [RFC3118], "Authentication for
  DHCP Messages".

While exposure of location information was possible with RFC 4388, this
specification seems to simplify and magnify the problem.  If the DHCP
server accepts an unauthenticated message (or fails to verify the authentication
information), a lease query by remote ID permits an attacker to obtain all the
location information in a very efficient manner.  Since the risk is heightened,
I think a few additional words highlighting the importance of the DHCP
authentication mechanism would be appropriate in this specification.

[Ballot comment]
Section 1., paragraph 1:
>    active lease informations associated with a given connection/circuit,

  Nit: s/informations/information/


Section 4.8., paragraph 2:
>    To generate replies for a lease query by Remote ID effeciently, a

  Nit: s/effeciently,/efficiently,/

  (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
        Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
        document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
        version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

I (Ted Lemon ) am the shepherd for this document.
I have personally reviewed the document, and I think it is ready to
forward to the IESG for publication.

  (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
        and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
        any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
        have been performed? 

The document has been carefully reviewed by several experienced DHCP
implementors.  I have no concerns that the document has not had
adequate review.

  (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
        needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
        e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
        AAA, internationalization or XML?

This document is DHCP-specific, and doesn't really make use of
non-DHCP terminology.  I think that the usual review that the IESG
gives to documents of this type should be sufficient to capture any
unclear use of terminology that wasn't immediately obvious in the DHC
working group.

  (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
        issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
        and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
        or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
        has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
        event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
        that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
        concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
        been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
        disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
        this issue.

I am not aware of any IPR concerns, and none have been registered with
the IETF.

  (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
        represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
        others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
        agree with it? 

There was substantial commentary from a variety of independent sources
on the document.  Clearly there is strong demand from the authors, and
the active participation of others suggests that support is fairly
broad, particularly for such a specialized extension.

  (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
        discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
        separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
        should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
        entered into the ID Tracker.)

There was no dissent in the last call.

  (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
        document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
        and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
        not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
        met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
        Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

There is one warning that comes up--the authors didn't put an intended
status on the document.  The intended status is Proposed Standard.
The authors will correct this in the next spin of the document, after
updating the draft according to whatever comments come back during
IESG review.

  (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
        informative? Are there normative references to documents that
        are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
        state? If such normative references exist, what is the
        strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
        that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
        so, list these downward references to support the Area
        Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

There are no downward normative references.

  (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
        consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
        of the document? If the document specifies protocol
        extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
        registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
        the document creates a new registry, does it define the
        proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
        procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
        reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
        document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
        conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
        can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

There are no new namespaces or codes defined in this document.

  (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
        document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
        code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
        an automated checker?

The document doesn't contain any such sections.

  (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
        Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
        Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the
        "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
        announcement contains the following sections:

    Technical Summary
This document proposes an extension to the DHCPLEASEQUERY
exchange described in RFC4388.  The extension allows the
querying agent to immediately refresh its cache after a reboot
using information that is available to it (the remote id)
rather than requiring it to make LEASEQUERY requests as a
result of information gleaned from traffic over time.

    Working Group Summary
This document appeared in the working group at the beginning of
2008.  There has been substantial review of this document.

    Document Quality
The document has undergone careful review, and the working
group is satisfied with its quality.

    Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd for this document?  Who is the
Responsible Area Director?  If the document requires IANA
experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
in this document are .'

The document shepherd is Ted Lemon .  I believe
the responsible A-D is Ralph Droms.