DHC WG Agenda for IETF-100 (Singapore)

Date: Thursday, November 16, 2017, 18:10-19:10 (UT + 8), Afternoon session III
Location: Collyer
Chairs: Tomek Mrugalski (TM) & Bernie Volz (BV)
Secretary: none (open)
Presentations materials: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/100/materials.html#wg-dhc

 1. Administrativia (Agenda Bashing, WG Status, ...), Chairs

  - BV and TM presented the Adminstrativia slides
  - Eliot Lear (EL) Please move item 2 to the bottom.
  - BV - I'd prefer to leave it.
  - TM - These aren't the only items.
 
 2. Future of DHC WG - recharter?, Chairs

  - TM presented the Future of the working group slides.
  - Suresh Krishnan (responsible AD) requested  move item 1 (update
    DHCPv6 base spec and publish as std) to the end as it is less
    important in the overall WG activity.

  - Chairs will update charter text and send it to the WG for review
    before submitting it.
 
 3. DHCPv6 Yang Model, Ian Farrer (IF)
    draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-yang

  - The model in its current state is too big. Dividing into specific functional
    models (server, client, relay) would help with the review.
  - IF pointed out that there number of open issues with the draft
    would warrant using some sort of an issue tracker. Two options
    (using IETF hosted trac-based issue tracker or one hosted on
    github) were discussed, but no clear decision has been made.
  - EL volunteered. Happy to contribute and review. EL added: would like to get
    involved because of the long term implications, how to deploy configuration
    after the device is capable of sending packets, how to protect the information
    being deployed. A point has been made that the model may even
    outlive the DHCPv6 protocol.
  - IF - we could do RFC7227 equivalent for yang extensions
  - IF - asked for volunteers to review and potentially co-auther document
  - volunteers: Tim Winter, Bernie Volz, Eliot Lear, Robert Nagy, Tomek Mrugalski

 4. DHCP/DHCPv6 options for LWM2M bootstrapping, Srinivasa Rao Nallurim (SN)
    draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-lwm2m-bootstrap-options

  - SN presented the slides. The draft was reviewed by two IOT experts and
    some of them were addressed. One open ended comment raised a fear
    that the proposal right now causes more security problems than it
    solves. It is uncertain at this stage how to address this
    comment. No specific decisions has been made and the work on this
    draft will continue.

 5. DHCPv6 options for MQTT client configuration, Srinivasa Rao Nallurim (SN)
    draft-nalluri-dhc-dhcpv6-mqtt-config-options

  - SN presented the slides.
  - SN is looking for more WG feedback on both documents; BV provided some comments
    to the mailing list earlier in the week
  - There was a discussion about how many of these IoT related options there might be
    and is the the best way to go for these options? If there are other standards
    organizations, perhaps they should use the Vendor-Identifying options (DHCPv6
    options 16 & 17, DHCPv4 RFC 3925) that these organizations could use - similar to
    the CableLabs DOCSIS options (mostly for V6). That would be a far better way to
    go and the standards organization then as control of the options and can publish
    themselves. OASIS was mentioned in this context, but the chairs
    generally felt there was not enough experts in the room to make
    specific recommendation.

The session ended at 19:10.

Minutes prepared by Bernie Volz from etherpad notes by Tomek Mrugalski (and others).

Last updated: December 20, 2017