Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) Options for the Intel Preboot eXecution Environment (PXE)
RFC 4578

[Note]: 'The PROTO Shepherd for this document is Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>. 3/20/06: Sent ping to Mark to clear remaining discuss.' added by Margaret Wasserman

[Ballot discuss]
If this is an Intel-specific protocol, I'd like to point that out in the title.

It seems that advertising an architecture type could provide a hacker with information on how to hack a given system. Should there be warning text in the security considerations section for this?

IANA Comments:
As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this document to have NO IANA Actions.  However, there have been many comments on the IESG list and we are reviewing them to see if actions do need to be taken.  Further clarification is needed.

[Ballot discuss]
Arch types have been requested for such end-of-life architectures as DEC Alpha, but none for, say, Sun or Apple? Seems odd. Also, should there be some description of what these "architectures" are, for example, what is an "Intel Lean Client"?

It seems that advertising an architecture type could provide a hacker with information on how to hack a given system. Should there be warning text in the security considerations section for this?

[Ballot discuss]
Arch types have been requested for such end-of-life architectures as DEC Alpha, but none for, say, Sun or Apple? Seems odd. Should there be some description of what these "architectures" are, for example, what is an "Intel Lean Client"?

[Ballot discuss]
The Security Considerations should discuss the consequences of
  providing an incorrect value in these extensions.  It seems like
  the wrong boot images could be provided, which may have security
  ramifications.

[Ballot discuss]
Interesting question from a MIB Doctor review.

This DISCUSS is a request to pls discuss this and explain
the/an answer to teh question raised. Once I have the answer,
I will decide what to do.

>  o draft-ietf-dhc-pxe-options-02.txt
>    DHCP Preboot eXecution Environment (PXE) Options (Informational) - 4 of 4
>    Note: The PROTO Shepherd for this document is Ralph Droms
>    .
>    Token: Margaret Wasserman

The above document says:

  As options 128-135 are not officially assigned for PXE use (previous
  to November 2004 they were considered site-specific options, [6]),
  use of these options may conflict with other uses of these options.

A good question to ask would be:  if no conflicting uses have surfaced,
why not request assignment of these options?  Reference [6] is RFC
3942, which says:

  4. For those options in the "Tentatively Assigned" state, vendors
      have 18 months following this RFC's publication date to submit an
      Internet-Draft documenting the option.  The documented usage MUST
      be consistent with the existing usage.  When the option usage is
      published as an RFC, IANA will move the option to the "Assigned"
      state.

[Ballot comment]
From Gen-ART review by Spencer Dawkins:

I expect the RFC Editor would expand acronyms, etc. I thought

  As options 128-135 are not officially assigned for PXE use (previous
  to November 2004 they were considered site-specific options, [6]),
  use of these options may conflict with other uses of these options.

was oddly phrased - perhaps the last line should have been something like

  use of these option values for PXE may conflict with other uses of the
same options on the same networks.

[Ballot discuss]
I believe IANA needs to point to this document from the DHCP options registry and therefore there should be appropriate IANA Considerations included. The fact that the document is Informational makes no difference to this.

[Ballot discuss]
How can additional values be registered for the Client System
  Architecture Type Option and the Client Network Interface
  Identifier Option?  An IANA registry seems appropriate.

  The Security Considerations should discuss the consequences of
  providing an incorrect value in these extensions.  It seems like
  the wrong boot images could be provided, which may have security
  ramifications.