Minutes IETF100: dhc
Dynamic Host Configuration
||Minutes IETF100: dhc
DHC WG Agenda for IETF-100 (Singapore)
Date: Thursday, November 16, 2017, 18:10-19:10 (UT + 8), Afternoon session III
Chairs: Tomek Mrugalski (TM) & Bernie Volz (BV)
Secretary: none (open)
Presentations materials: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/100/materials.html#wg-dhc
1. Administrativia (Agenda Bashing, WG Status, ...), Chairs
- BV and TM presented the Adminstrativia slides
- Eliot Lear (EL) Please move item 2 to the bottom.
- BV - I'd prefer to leave it.
- TM - These aren't the only items.
2. Future of DHC WG - recharter?, Chairs
- TM presented the Future of the working group slides.
- Suresh Krishnan (responsible AD) requested move item 1 (update
DHCPv6 base spec and publish as std) to the end as it is less
important in the overall WG activity.
- Chairs will update charter text and send it to the WG for review
before submitting it.
3. DHCPv6 Yang Model, Ian Farrer (IF)
- The model in its current state is too big. Dividing into specific functional
models (server, client, relay) would help with the review.
- IF pointed out that there number of open issues with the draft
would warrant using some sort of an issue tracker. Two options
(using IETF hosted trac-based issue tracker or one hosted on
github) were discussed, but no clear decision has been made.
- EL volunteered. Happy to contribute and review. EL added: would like to get
involved because of the long term implications, how to deploy configuration
after the device is capable of sending packets, how to protect the information
being deployed. A point has been made that the model may even
outlive the DHCPv6 protocol.
- IF - we could do RFC7227 equivalent for yang extensions
- IF - asked for volunteers to review and potentially co-auther document
- volunteers: Tim Winter, Bernie Volz, Eliot Lear, Robert Nagy, Tomek Mrugalski
4. DHCP/DHCPv6 options for LWM2M bootstrapping, Srinivasa Rao Nallurim (SN)
- SN presented the slides. The draft was reviewed by two IOT experts and
some of them were addressed. One open ended comment raised a fear
that the proposal right now causes more security problems than it
solves. It is uncertain at this stage how to address this
comment. No specific decisions has been made and the work on this
draft will continue.
5. DHCPv6 options for MQTT client configuration, Srinivasa Rao Nallurim (SN)
- SN presented the slides.
- SN is looking for more WG feedback on both documents; BV provided some comments
to the mailing list earlier in the week
- There was a discussion about how many of these IoT related options there might be
and is the the best way to go for these options? If there are other standards
organizations, perhaps they should use the Vendor-Identifying options (DHCPv6
options 16 & 17, DHCPv4 RFC 3925) that these organizations could use - similar to
the CableLabs DOCSIS options (mostly for V6). That would be a far better way to
go and the standards organization then as control of the options and can publish
themselves. OASIS was mentioned in this context, but the chairs
generally felt there was not enough experts in the room to make
The session ended at 19:10.
Minutes prepared by Bernie Volz from etherpad notes by Tomek Mrugalski (and others).
Last updated: December 20, 2017