Skip to main content

Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) Relay Agent Subscriber-ID Option
RFC 4580

Yes

(Margaret Cullen)

No Objection

(Bert Wijnen)
(Bill Fenner)
(Jon Peterson)
(Russ Housley)
(Sam Hartman)
(Scott Hollenbeck)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01 and is now closed.

(Margaret Cullen; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Allison Mankin; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2005-12-01)
No further objection, but I agree with Mark, this one needs highlighted security 
comments - not just the usual pointer to the weak security of DHCP.

I think DHCP needs an a document like DNS's RFC 3833, which
might stimulate some action towards work about DHCP spoof prevention
which is not otherwise happening.

(Bert Wijnen; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Bill Fenner; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Brian Carpenter; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2005-11-29)
I did wonder whether reference [4] shouldn't be normative.

(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2006-01-26)
This is a "subscriber ID" used for roaming between access points, apparantly sent in the clear. It seems to me that there should be some mention in the security considerations section that if this value is snooped, it could be used to aid in hijacking service of the subscriber.

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Scott Hollenbeck; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Ted Hardie; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2005-11-29)
I agree with Brian that [4] is probably normative, as it is a normative reference in RFC3993, which
is noted as a source document in the Acknowledgements.  This seems like something that can
be fixed in AUTH48, though.