Kerberos Options for DHCPv6
RFC 6784
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2015-10-14
|
18 | (System) | Notify list changed from krb-wg-chairs@ietf.org, draft-sakane-dhc-dhcpv6-kdc-option@ietf.org to (None) |
2012-11-07
|
18 | (System) | RFC published |
2012-10-05
|
18 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2012-10-04
|
18 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from In Progress |
2012-10-04
|
18 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2012-09-17
|
18 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2012-09-14
|
18 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2012-09-14
|
18 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2012-09-14
|
18 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2012-09-14
|
18 | Cindy Morgan | IESG has approved the document |
2012-09-14
|
18 | Cindy Morgan | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2012-09-14
|
18 | Cindy Morgan | Ballot approval text was generated |
2012-09-14
|
18 | Stephen Farrell | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-09-14
|
18 | Stephen Farrell | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-09-13
|
18 | Shoichi Sakane | New version available: draft-sakane-dhc-dhcpv6-kdc-option-18.txt |
2012-07-19
|
17 | Cindy Morgan | State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2012-07-19
|
17 | Gonzalo Camarillo | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Gonzalo Camarillo |
2012-07-19
|
17 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot comment] Would you mind rewriting the Abstract for clarity? Something like... This document defines four new options for the Dynamic Host Configuration … [Ballot comment] Would you mind rewriting the Abstract for clarity? Something like... This document defines four new options for the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6). These options are used to carry coniguration information for Kerberos. |
2012-07-19
|
17 | Adrian Farrel | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Adrian Farrel |
2012-07-18
|
17 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2012-07-18
|
17 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot comment] I agree with Barry's concerns. Please address them. |
2012-07-18
|
17 | Pete Resnick | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Pete Resnick |
2012-07-18
|
17 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2012-07-18
|
17 | Robert Sparks | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Robert Sparks |
2012-07-18
|
17 | Sean Turner | [Ballot comment] Updated based on email exchange with Sam. 1) a: r/defines new four/defines four new 2) s2: If you going to have the following: … [Ballot comment] Updated based on email exchange with Sam. 1) a: r/defines new four/defines four new 2) s2: If you going to have the following: It is assumed that the readers are familiar with the terms and concepts described in DHCPv6 [RFC3315]. You might as well throw in [RFC2782], [RFC3315], and [RFC4120] ;) 3) s3: r/DHCP configuration parameters/DHCPv6 configuration parameters 4) s3.3: You need to leave a marker for IANA to fill for the number it assigns: OLD: The option-code of this option is OPTION_KRB_DEFAULT_REALM_NAME. NEW: The option-code of this option is OPTION_KRB_DEFAULT_REALM_NAME (TBD by IANA). 5) s3.4: should DTLS be in the list? 6) s3.4: r/realm- name/realm-name 7) app a: It's unclear to me why you need this appendix. The reason is clearly stated in s1. If the app a remains: 8) app a, s1: It's probably be better to say: This appendix gives reasons why DHCP-based KDC discovery *can be* more appropriate for industrial systems than DNS-based KDC discovery (as described in RFC4120 - the "RFC4120-way"). I'm suggesting this because I'm not entirely sure it always "is" better to use DHCP over DNS in an industrial system. and: *Some* Industrial systems have their own name spaces and naming systems which are not based on FQDN and DNS. Do they all have their own? 9) app a, s1: What kind of server are we getting rid of if we're using DHCP-based KDC discovery over DNS-based discovery. DHCP-based KDC discovery is more efficient because reducing the number of servers reduces the number of messages, improves reliability and reduces management cost. Also the above seems a bit lit marketing to me. 10) app a, s2 & s3: Not sure why these paragraphs are here. The heart of matter is in s4 - fielded devices don't support FQDN/DNS hence you need a DHCP mechanism. You're goal is to not replace all the currently fielded devices because it's too darn expensive. In s2 it might be worth making the following change before the bullets: Field devices currently deployed where DHCP-based KDC discovery can be more appropriate than DNS-based KDC discovery have the following characteristics: In s3: Why is this paragraph needed at all. It doesn't fit under the heading of "Why DNS is not acceptable in some environments". Seems like marketing to me. 11) app a, s5: How are less servers being implemented? 12) app a, s6: There's a whole 'lotta references in Appendix A that need to be added in s8.2. |
2012-07-18
|
17 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Sean Turner has been changed to No Objection from Discuss |
2012-07-17
|
17 | Alexey Melnikov | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed. Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov. |
2012-07-17
|
17 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Russ Housley |
2012-07-17
|
17 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot comment] [updated, as the IANA part takes care all of stuff to be registered.] Please reply to these comments, as they are substantial for … [Ballot comment] [updated, as the IANA part takes care all of stuff to be registered.] Please reply to these comments, as they are substantial for the document: Section 3., paragraph 7: > With the exception of the Kerberos KDC Option, none of these options > may appear more than once in a DHCPv6 message. Shouldn't this read 'MUST NOT appear'? Appendix B., paragraph 1: > When no criteria have been specified and the client could get the > Kerberos information from either the DNS server or the DHCPv6 server, > then the information from DNS should be preferred. The following is > the guideline for the client in such an environment. This appendix is not meant to be the standard, but rather informational, isn't it? If it is this way, please state it explicitly! |
2012-07-17
|
17 | Martin Stiemerling | Ballot comment text updated for Martin Stiemerling |
2012-07-17
|
17 | Sean Turner | [Ballot discuss] Does Appendix A really need to be part of this draft, that is can't it just be removed from the draft? Some of … [Ballot discuss] Does Appendix A really need to be part of this draft, that is can't it just be removed from the draft? Some of wording seems awfully strong/inflammatory ... like "DHCP-based KDC discovery is more appropriate ..." is it always? Further, the reason why this draft is needed is because the currently fielded devices don't support DNS, and that's okay. But, that really means you only need s4 of Appendix A - and that's already in s1. |
2012-07-17
|
17 | Sean Turner | [Ballot comment] 1) a: r/defines new four/defines four new 2) s2: If you going to have the following: It is assumed that the readers are … [Ballot comment] 1) a: r/defines new four/defines four new 2) s2: If you going to have the following: It is assumed that the readers are familiar with the terms and concepts described in DHCPv6 [RFC3315]. You might as well throw in [RFC2782], [RFC3315], and [RFC4120] ;) 3) s3: r/DHCP configuration parameters/DHCPv6 configuration parameters 4) s3.3: You need to leave a marker for IANA to fill for the number it assigns: OLD: The option-code of this option is OPTION_KRB_DEFAULT_REALM_NAME. NEW: The option-code of this option is OPTION_KRB_DEFAULT_REALM_NAME (TBD by IANA). 5) s3.4: should DTLS be in the list? 6) s3.4: r/realm- name/realm-name 7) app a, s1: If the appendix remains, then it's probably be better to say: This appendix gives reasons why DHCP-based KDC discovery *can be* more appropriate for industrial systems than DNS-based KDC discovery (as described in RFC4120 - the "RFC4120-way"). I'm suggesting this because I'm not entirely sure it always "is" better to use DHCP over DNS in an industrial system. It's only better now because all of the currently fielded devices don't support DNS. and: *Some* Industrial systems have their own name spaces and naming systems which are not based on FQDN and DNS. 8) app a, s1: What kind of server are we getting rid of if we're using DHCP-based KDC discovery over DNS-based discovery. DHCP-based KDC discovery is more efficient because reducing the number of servers reduces the number of messages, improves reliability and reduces management cost. 9) app a, s2 & s3: Not sure why these paragraphs are here. The heart of matter is in s4 - fielded devices don't support FQDN/DNS hence you need a DHCP mechanism. You're goal is to not replace all the currently fielded devices because it's too darn expensive. If App A remains, then In s2 it might be worth making the following change before the bullets: Field devices currently deployed where DHCP-based KDC discovery can be more appropriate than DNS-based KDC discovery have the following characteristics: In s3: Totally confused about why this paragraph is needed at all. It doesn't fit under the heading of "Why DNS is not acceptable in some environments". 10) app a, s5: How are less servers being implemented? 11) app a, s6: If this remains as is, there's a whole 'lotta references in Appendix A that need to be added in s8.2. |
2012-07-17
|
17 | Sean Turner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Sean Turner |
2012-07-17
|
17 | Wesley Eddy | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Wesley Eddy |
2012-07-17
|
17 | Stewart Bryant | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Stewart Bryant |
2012-07-17
|
17 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot comment] Please reply to these comments, as they are substantial for the document: Section 3., paragraph 7: > With the exception of the … [Ballot comment] Please reply to these comments, as they are substantial for the document: Section 3., paragraph 7: > With the exception of the Kerberos KDC Option, none of these options > may appear more than once in a DHCPv6 message. Shouldn't this read 'MUST NOT appear'? Section 3.4., paragraph 8: > o Transport Type (8-bit): The Transport Type specifies the transport > protocol used for Kerberos. Kerberos [RFC4120] defines UDP and > TCP transports. Exchanges over TCP are further described in > [RFC5021] while the transport of Kerberos over TLS is described in > [RFC6251]. I wonder, if the 'Transport Type' field should be also managed by IANA. E.g., how are the code points managed if a new transport protocol is added in the future to Kerberos? Appendix B., paragraph 1: > When no criteria have been specified and the client could get the > Kerberos information from either the DNS server or the DHCPv6 server, > then the information from DNS should be preferred. The following is > the guideline for the client in such an environment. This appendix is not meant to be the standard, but rather informational, isn't it? If it is this way, please state it explicitly! |
2012-07-17
|
17 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2012-07-16
|
17 | Ralph Droms | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ralph Droms |
2012-07-16
|
17 | Ron Bonica | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ronald Bonica |
2012-07-14
|
17 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] Substantive comments; these are non-blocking, but please consider them seriously, and feel free to chat with me about them: -- Section 4 -- … [Ballot comment] Substantive comments; these are non-blocking, but please consider them seriously, and feel free to chat with me about them: -- Section 4 -- I find the use of 2119 language a bit odd in the second and third paragraphs. You use MUST for what the client sends to the server, and you don't use 2119 language for how the server responds. In fact, I think it would be fine to strike the MUSTs from the client side too. For example, this works fine for the third paragraph: If a client requires configuration parameters for a KDC, the client sends a DHCPv6 ORO specifying the Kerberos KDC Option. The client MAY include a Kerberos Principal Name Option. The client MAY include a Kerberos Realm Name Option. That makes it parallel to the protocol instructions for the server. I also find the MUST in the fifth paragraph to be odd, but it matches the 2119 language in RFC 2782, so I can't really pick any bones with it. The MUST in Section 4.1 is stranger still: The administrator of the realm MUST define the method as part of the configuration of the client before the client is installed. I don't know how that qualifies as a MUST, how it has anything to do with interoperability, nor how it could be detected or enforced. Wouldn't it be suitable to just say that "the administrator of the realm usually defines the method [...]" ? -- IANA Considerations -- The assignment of future entries is by "IETF Consensus" policy as described in BCP 26 [RFC5226]. In RFC 5226 this is called "IETF Review", not "IETF Consensus"; please change that. |
2012-07-14
|
17 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2012-07-13
|
17 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Sam Weiler |
2012-07-13
|
17 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Telechat review by SECDIR is assigned to Sam Weiler |
2012-07-12
|
17 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Alexey Melnikov |
2012-07-12
|
17 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Alexey Melnikov |
2012-07-10
|
17 | Robert Sparks | Please ignore the momentary defer state. It was a tracker driving error on my part. |
2012-07-10
|
17 | Robert Sparks | State changed to IESG Evaluation from IESG Evaluation - Defer |
2012-07-10
|
17 | Robert Sparks | State changed to IESG Evaluation - Defer from IESG Evaluation |
2012-07-10
|
17 | Pearl Liang | IANA has reviewed draft-sakane-dhc-dhcpv6-kdc-option-14.txt and has the following comments: Upon approval, IANA will perform the following actions: ACTION 1: IANA will register the following DHCPv6 … IANA has reviewed draft-sakane-dhc-dhcpv6-kdc-option-14.txt and has the following comments: Upon approval, IANA will perform the following actions: ACTION 1: IANA will register the following DHCPv6 Option Codes at http://www.iana.org/assignments/dhcpv6-parameters with this document as a reference: OPTION_KRB_PRINCIPAL_NAME OPTION_KRB_REALM_NAME OPTION_KRB_DEFAULT_REALM_NAME OPTION_KRB_KDC ACTION 2: IANA will create the following registry at http://www.iana.org/assignments/kerberos-parameters Registry Name: Kerberos Message Transport Type Reference: [this document] Registration Procedures: IETF Review Value Transport Type Reference ---- -------------- --------- 0 Reserved [this document] 1 UDP [this document] 2 TCP [this document] 3 TLS [this document] 4-254 Unassigned 255 Reserved [this document] |
2012-07-10
|
17 | Stephen Farrell | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2012-07-19 |
2012-07-10
|
17 | Stephen Farrell | State changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::AD Followup |
2012-07-10
|
17 | Stephen Farrell | Ballot has been issued |
2012-07-10
|
17 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2012-07-10
|
17 | Stephen Farrell | Created "Approve" ballot |
2012-07-10
|
17 | Stephen Farrell | Ballot writeup was changed |
2012-07-09
|
17 | Shoichi Sakane | New version available: draft-sakane-dhc-dhcpv6-kdc-option-17.txt |
2012-07-09
|
16 | Shoichi Sakane | New version available: draft-sakane-dhc-dhcpv6-kdc-option-16.txt |
2012-07-09
|
15 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2012-07-09
|
15 | Shoichi Sakane | New version available: draft-sakane-dhc-dhcpv6-kdc-option-15.txt |
2012-06-19
|
14 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Sam Weiler. |
2012-04-09
|
14 | Stephen Farrell | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead::Revised ID Needed from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead |
2012-03-23
|
14 | Alexey Melnikov | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed. Reviewer: Alexey Melnikov. |
2012-03-23
|
14 | (System) | State changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call |
2012-03-16
|
14 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sam Weiler |
2012-03-16
|
14 | Samuel Weiler | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Sam Weiler |
2012-03-15
|
14 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Alexey Melnikov |
2012-03-15
|
14 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Alexey Melnikov |
2012-03-09
|
14 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2012-03-09
|
14 | Amy Vezza | State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: … State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested The following Last Call Announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: IETF-Announce CC: Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Subject: Last Call: (Kerberos Options for DHCPv6) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Kerberos WG (krb-wg) to consider the following document: - 'Kerberos Options for DHCPv6' as a Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2012-03-23. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract This document defines new four options for the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) to carry configuration information related to the Kerberos protocol [RFC4120]. The file can be obtained via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sakane-dhc-dhcpv6-kdc-option/ IESG discussion can be tracked via http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sakane-dhc-dhcpv6-kdc-option/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. This document has a normative reference to RFC 6251 which is an informational RFC. |
2012-03-09
|
14 | Stephen Farrell | Last call was requested |
2012-03-09
|
14 | Stephen Farrell | Ballot approval text was generated |
2012-03-09
|
14 | Stephen Farrell | Ballot writeup was generated |
2012-03-09
|
14 | Stephen Farrell | State changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation::AD Followup |
2012-03-09
|
14 | Stephen Farrell | Last call announcement was changed |
2012-03-09
|
14 | Stephen Farrell | Last call announcement was generated |
2012-03-09
|
14 | Jeffrey Hutzelman | IETF state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document |
2012-03-09
|
14 | Jeffrey Hutzelman | Annotation tags Author or Editor Needed, Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD cleared. |
2012-03-08
|
14 | Jeffrey Hutzelman | Restore state to Submitted to IESG as it was before the new version was submitted. Drop Revised I-D Needed; -14 addresses issues raised in AD … Restore state to Submitted to IESG as it was before the new version was submitted. Drop Revised I-D Needed; -14 addresses issues raised in AD review. Drop Author/Editor Needed; many thanks to Stephen Farrell for helping clean up the text. |
2012-03-08
|
14 | (System) | Sub state has been changed to AD Followup from Revised ID Needed |
2012-03-08
|
14 | Shoichi Sakane | New version available: draft-sakane-dhc-dhcpv6-kdc-option-14.txt |
2012-01-22
|
13 | Stephen Farrell | State changed to AD Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from Publication Requested. |
2011-12-27
|
13 | (System) | New version available: draft-sakane-dhc-dhcpv6-kdc-option-13.txt |
2011-12-16
|
13 | Jeffrey Hutzelman | IETF state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Document |
2011-12-16
|
13 | Jeffrey Hutzelman | Needs a volunteer to clean up English-language issues and make the document more readable. If a volunteer is found, we should be ready to move … Needs a volunteer to clean up English-language issues and make the document more readable. If a volunteer is found, we should be ready to move forward sometime in January 2012. Otherwise, we'll have to move forward without doing any more editing at this time, and hope reviewers don't have too hard a time at it. |
2011-12-16
|
13 | Jeffrey Hutzelman | Annotation tags Author or Editor Needed, Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD set. |
2011-11-10
|
13 | Amy Vezza | This is a request to the IESG to approve publication of "Kerberos Option for DHCPv6", draft-sakane-dhc-dhcpv6-kdc-option-12.txt, as a Standards Track RFC. This document is … This is a request to the IESG to approve publication of "Kerberos Option for DHCPv6", draft-sakane-dhc-dhcpv6-kdc-option-12.txt, as a Standards Track RFC. This document is a product of the Kerberos Working Group. Please note that although the header on the current version lists the intended status as "Informational", we are in fact requesting that it be published on the standards track. (1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the document and, in particular, does he or she believe this version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication? >> The Document Shepherd for this document is Jeffrey Hutzelman, >> . I have reviewed this document, and I believe >> it is ready for IETF-wide review and publication as a >> Proposed Standard. (1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? >> This document has received significant review within the >> Kerberos working group, and also received review from members >> of the Dynamic Host Configuration (DHC) working group. The >> WGLC announcement was sent to both lists. Any issues raised >> have been resolved. (1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document needs more review from a particular or broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with AAA, internationalization or XML? >> I don't believe any particular outside review is required, >> beyond that already received from the DHC WG. >> Of course, more review is always welcome. (1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document been filed? If so, please include a reference to the disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on this issue. >> I have no concerns. >> No IPR disclosures related to this document have been filed. (1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? >> There is concensus within the working group to publish this >> document. (1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is entered into the ID Tracker.) >> There have been no expressions of discontent. (1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the document satisfies all ID nits? (See http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB Doctor, media type and URI type reviews? >> This document has been run through the idnits tool, and was >> reviewed manually for compliance with requirements not checked >> by the automatic tool. No additional formal review criteria >> apply to this document. (1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and informative? Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the strategy for their completion? Are there normative references that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967]. >> References have been split appropriately. There are no >> normative downward references or normative references to >> documents that are not ready for advancement. (1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA consideration section exists and is consistent with the body of the document? If the document specifies protocol extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If the document creates a new registry, does it define the proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation? >> This document allocates four DHCPv6 option codes and creates >> a registry for KDC transport protocols. (1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the document that are written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in an automated checker? >> No part of this document is written in a formal language >> requiring such verification. (1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This document defines a new DHCPv6 option to carry a set of configuration information related to the Kerberos protocol [RFC4120]. This document also defines three sub-options to be used within this new option, which specify a realm name of the Kerberos, a list of IP addresses of the Key Distribution Center of that realm, and a client principal name to distinguish a Kerberos client by the DHCPv6 server. Working Group Summary This document represents the consensus of the Kerberos Working Group. It was also reviewed in the Dynamic Host Configuration Working Group, in keeping with that working group's responsibility for reviewing DHCP options and extensions. Document Quality I know of no implementations at this time. Personnel The Document Shepherd for this document is Jeffrey Hutzelman. The responsible Area Director is Stephen Farrell. |
2011-11-10
|
13 | Amy Vezza | Draft added in state Publication Requested |
2011-11-10
|
13 | Amy Vezza | [Note]: 'The Document Shepherd for this document is Jeffrey Hutzelman, (jhutz@cmu.edu).' added |
2011-07-28
|
13 | Jeffrey Hutzelman | Changed protocol writeup |
2011-07-28
|
12 | (System) | New version available: draft-sakane-dhc-dhcpv6-kdc-option-12.txt |
2011-05-24
|
11 | (System) | New version available: draft-sakane-dhc-dhcpv6-kdc-option-11.txt |
2011-05-15
|
13 | (System) | Document has expired |
2010-11-12
|
10 | (System) | New version available: draft-sakane-dhc-dhcpv6-kdc-option-10.txt |
2010-09-10
|
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-sakane-dhc-dhcpv6-kdc-option-09.txt |
2010-03-08
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-sakane-dhc-dhcpv6-kdc-option-08.txt |
2010-02-25
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-sakane-dhc-dhcpv6-kdc-option-07.txt |
2010-01-22
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-sakane-dhc-dhcpv6-kdc-option-06.txt |
2009-09-13
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-sakane-dhc-dhcpv6-kdc-option-05.txt |
2009-03-12
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-sakane-dhc-dhcpv6-kdc-option-04.txt |
2008-10-30
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-sakane-dhc-dhcpv6-kdc-option-03.txt |
2008-10-01
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-sakane-dhc-dhcpv6-kdc-option-02.txt |
2008-08-21
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-sakane-dhc-dhcpv6-kdc-option-01.txt |
2008-02-22
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-sakane-dhc-dhcpv6-kdc-option-00.txt |