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.