Minutes for DHC at IETF-95
minutes-95-dhc-2

Meeting Minutes Dynamic Host Configuration (dhc) WG
Title Minutes for DHC at IETF-95
State Active
Other versions plain text
Last updated 2016-04-21

Meeting Minutes
minutes-95-dhc

***DRAFT*** DHC WG minutes

DHC WG @ IETF-95 Etherpad Notes

1. Co-Chairs - Administrativia (Agenda Bashing, WG Status, ...) - 5 minutes
2. Manufacturer Usage Description Option, Eliot Lear - 15 minutes, started at
14:08
    draft-lear-mud-framework
    draft-lear-ietf-dhc-mud-option

    Suresh: whether you're progressing the MUD framework
    Tomek: so it's not only a simple retrieving info for the server
    Bernie: server might need some out of band communication
    Ted Lemon: it sounds no active WG for this work
    Suresh: it's not a simple solution
    Tim Chown: in OPSSEC, Stefan Winter presented a YANG model on configuring
    device
      security settings, looks like some overlap with what you do

    Discussion whether this is in scope for the WG. The option is sent by the
    client, the server is supposed to send the content to MUD server and send
    back to the client. This is more than a typical new basic configuration
    option, so it somewhat falls into "protocol extension" category, but just
    barely. Many server implementations support external callouts or allow
    exporting the data.

    Chairs will ask on the ML whether there's interest in this work.

    AD (Suresh) to follow up where in the IETF this work should be done.

3. Secure DHCPv6, Ted Lemon (for Lishan Li) - 20 minutes, started at 14:21
    draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6

    Ted describes the update since Yokohama. Bernie asked whether there were any
    expert security reviewers, other than Randy Bush. Ted and Suresh talked and
    it seems that asking Stephen Farrell is the best next step here.

    Ted acknowledged that some additional work is needed and extra revision
    will be
      published.

    draft-li-dhc-secure-dhcpv6-deployment, started at 14:32.
    Suresh: this is 3 pages long, why is it even a separate draft?
    Bernie: there was some discussion with Lishan and it seems to be at the
    fence,
      maybe it'll stay separate or maybe will be merged.
    Ted: different opinion. Deployment consideration should be a separated
    document, so
      that the definition document is dedicated into technical aspects.

    Another option may be further expanding it to become a deployment guide and
    perhaps moved to OPSEC.

    Suresh: The DoS attack text is something that certainly needs to go in the
    protocol
      document.

4. DHCPv6 Failover Update, Bernie Volz (for Kim Kinnear) - 10 minutes, started
at 14:46
    draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol

    Document should be ready for WGLC, but needs careful technical review.
    Bernie asked for volunteers for one more thorough review, sadly no
    volunteers

5. DHCPv6 Prefix Length Hint Issues, Bernie Volz (for Tianxiang Li) - 10
minutes, 14:50
    draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue

    The authors believe work is ready for WGLC.

    Ian: Is this now informational? "This is the suggested way to do it"?
    Bernie: Correct. There were some discussions and the conclusion was to not
      enforce it.
    Marcin (on jabber): I'd suggest this is standards track doc with normative
    language
      in. Otherwise implementations will ignore hints.

6. DHCP Relay / Server Communication and Pervasive Monitoring, Chairs - 10
minutes,
    started at 14:55

    Bernie explains the rationale and when the problem was raised. This was
    initiated
      because of an IESG Discuss on draft-ietf-dhc-access-network-identifier
      that relay to relay/server communication is not "secured" against
      pervasive monitoring.

    Tim: not only regard with security, but also what you would use the
    identifier Francis: The standard approach is to use IPSec. What is the
    problem here? Suresh: we need to consider something that Francis said
    earlier: there may be
      relays without addresses (e.g. LDRA)
    Tim: there are some comments from Stephen, will send them to the mailing
    list. Sheng: agree with there is work to be done, but if you assemble a
    design team,
      ask for a security expert first.

    This needs to be taken to the list to determine whether the WG believes
    there is a problem here.

7. DHCPv6bis update & issues discussion, dhcpv6bis team - 15 minutes,
    draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis

    The plan is to submit an 05 draft in May and initiate WGLC. Volunteers were
    found to review the document during WGLC.

    Ian: for implementors, is there any digest of the difference between RFC3315
    Marcin Siodeski (via Jabber): Shawn Routhier has volunteered to review
    Marcin clarifying my point on jabber: The RFC3315bis document includes an
    appendix
      which lists all changes we have made to the original document. It is
      probably easier for the reviewer to start review from reading the whole
      appendix as opposed to viewing all tickets we have in Trac or diffs
      between specific document versions. The appendix is at the end so it is
      easy to miss it.

    Volunteers for review: Ted Lemon, Bernie Volz, Mohammed Boucadair, Tim
    Winters, Tim Chown, Francis Dupont, Paul Ebersman Co-authors (who are
    supposed to review without explicitly voluneering): Bernie Volz, Sheng
    Jiang, Marcin Siodelski, Ian - I also volunteered to review

8. Forcerenew Reconfiguration Extensions for DHCPv4, Luyuan Fang - 10 minutes
    draft-fang-dhc-dhcpv4-forcerenew-extensions

    While the document got a good reception, it isn't clear if there is
    sufficient interest to adopt this work; will be taken to list.