DHC WG Agenda for IETF-104 (Prague) Date: Wednesday, 27 March 2019, Morning Session I 0900-1100 (GMT+1) Location: Karlin Chairs: Tomek Mrugalski & Bernie Volz Secretary: Presentations materials: https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/104/materials.html#wg-dhc Summary: The following presentations / discussions took place during the session: - "Link-Layer Addresses Assignment Mechanism for DHCPv6 (refresher)" about draft-bvtm-dhc-mac-assign, by Bernie Volz. This had failed an adoption call recently as no one commented either for or against. After the presentation and discussions, there was interested in retrying the adoption call. The chairs will shortly initiate the adoption call and need comments to the mailing list. - "SLAP quadrant selection options for DHCPv6" about draft-bernardos-dhc-slap-quadrant, by Carlos J. Bernardos. After some discussion, interest in doing an adoption call. Chairs will initiate shortly. - "YANG DHCPv6 update" about draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-yang by Ian Farrer (remote). Work has slowed down as several authors have lost interest. Discussed how to proceed. Ian to try to pull interested parties together to reboot effort. - "Future of the DHC WG, Chairs" by Tomek Mrugalski. Consensus seems to be to go dormant for a while after finishing work to advance RFC8415. One question as to whether temporary addresses might be something to deprecate from RFC8415. - "Problem Statement of Multi-requirement Extensions for DHCPv6" about draft-ren-dhc-problem-statement-of-mredhcpv6 by Lin He. Consensus was that this information on extending DHCP functionality is useful especially in light of future of WG. Call for adoption to be started. Details: 1. Administrativia (Agenda Bashing, WG Status, ...), Chairs - 10 minutes 2. Link-Layer Addresses Assignment Mechanism for DHCPv6 (refresher), Bernie Volz - 10 minutes draft-bvtm-dhc-mac-assign Bernie presented the slides. See https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/104/materials/slides-104-dhc-link-layer-addresses-assignment-mechanism-for-dhcpv6-refresher-01 Francis Dupont asked why the call for adoption failed. Bernie responded that we had zero responses. Tim Chown asked if there are any other proposals for a protocol (such as from IEEE). Bernie answered that he's not aware of one, but believes IEEE is working on one. Suresh (with AD hat off and remotely): supports this work Erik Kline: Question about sending many addresses, concern about pkt size (misunderstood the pkt format). Suresh: Does not believe IEEE has an alternative Jinmei: reviewed the draft, but was unsure about if the usage model. Willing to review it periodically if adopted. Tim asked if about some of the use cases and some discussion followed. Mic suggestion: the people interested in this usage mode should speak up during adoption 3. SLAP quadrant selection options for DHCPv6, Carlos J. Bernardos - 15 minutes draft-bernardos-dhc-slap-quadrant Carlos presented the slides See https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/104/materials/slides-104-dhc-slap-quadrant-selection-options-for-dhcpv6-00 +00:22:00: Carlos presenting Tim Winters: supports working on both documents, but keep as separate, try to advance them at the same time Tim Chown: agrees with Tim Winters Suresh: also supports another adoption call Chairs will initiate WG Adoption call for both link-layer documents. 4. YANG DHCPv6 update, Ian Farrer/Tomek Mrugalski - 10 minutes. draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-yang +00:36:00: Ian presenting remotely. Slides at https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/104/materials/slides-104-dhc-dhcpv6-yang-model-update-00 Ian requests those with issues on the issue tracker review recent changes to confirm their issues resolved. Bernie suggested we use approach similar to DNSOPS, define the basic DHCP data which can be used by anyone. Previous (~2000) attempts to do LDAP model failed because one model doesn't work as servers have different models. So, allows everyone to use fundamental building blocks to define their model. Ian responded that some options are not needed in the model (i.e., IA_NA). He feels a full model is mode useful as concepts are fairly uniform. Would like to know if current model does not work for a specific implementation and why. Bernie says that he wasn't expecting to model all options - just those that are configured. Ian suggests anything in an Information-Request. Bernie responds that it isn't that simple - take prefix exclude option. Tim Chown: There is a router base model that defines some of the options, not all. Questions if model would be useful. Tomek: Kea model is a bit different than the draft. Believes we can come up with a common demonitor model. Believes that doing bits and pieces (such as DNSOPS) is a last resort; would prefer a full model. Bernie beleives you can do basic components model, and then continue work on full model. Richard Peterson: focus the scope on common work. There will always be vendor-specific Yang models. Bernie: By doing basic items (i.e., prefix, ...) we can start and then build full models. Ian: Building blocks are pretty common; like to see a model with vendor customizations. Asks Bernie if there's anything in current model that would make this not doable. Bernie: Not sure, need to review model as it has been a while. Bernie: You are looking for help. Ian: Is anyone willing to work on this? Richard: as an operator willing to review and eventually deploy this (with softwire models). Ian asked if Richard would be willing to review. Ian to solicit interest/potential authors to work on this and determine course of action. Michal Nowikowski of ISC volunteered to work on document. 5. Future of the DHC WG, Chairs - 15 minutes +00:58:00: Tomek presenting See https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/104/materials/slides-104-dhc-future-of-the-dhc-wg-01 Jinmei: What about IA_TA's - should they be removed (deprecated)? Will we have any implementations? Bernie: Does not believe IA_TAs were deprecated in RFC8415. Tim Winters: His recollection was that IA_TAs were left in but not "recommmended". Tomek: As if interoperatibility was tested. Tim Winters: Doesn't beleive this is a major issue as some do not implement IA_TA and it is optional. Suresh: Supports WG going Dormant after RFC8415 is Internet Standard. Tim Chown: What we don't have is a list of what may be needed? Is there more protocol work? What about option reviews. Bernie: We have IANA expert review for DHCPv4 & DHCPv6 options. Options are now done in the other WGs. Tim Chown: What about unforseen items? Use Int-Area WG? Bernie: Yes, Int-Area would be a good backstop. Tim Chown: Thinks that going Dormant for a while to see if anything springs up before closing WG. Steve Morris (ISC): Follow model of TCP Maintenance WG? Avoid issues with DNSEXT and DNSOP now doing lots of DNS protocol work Ian: There may be an interim state, used by Softwire - don't accept new work, finish existing. Bernie: Doesn't feel setting up new WG which does what old one did. Ian: But you need a pratical way of handling things that come up. Shane Kerr: Don't use DNS model as DNSSEC interrupted other DNS work, as that was driven by getting DNSSEC deployed. Tomek: having a deadline of a year to finish current work will be motivational. Tim: +1 for the one year deadline Shane: Don't use DNS model as DNSSEC interrupted other DNS work. Suresh (via Eric V): Say to Tim - yes this would be the backup plan. Bernie: We'll see what happens between now and when we complete main goal (advance RFC8415) as things may change. 6. Problem Statement of Multi-requirement Extensions for DHCPv6, Gang Ren - 10 minutes draft-ren-dhc-problem-statement-of-mredhcpv6 +01:15:00: Lin He presenting See https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/104/materials/slides-104-dhc-problem-statement-of-multi-requirement-extensions-for-dhcpv6-00 Bernie: This is individual-submission and Informational track. It points out how to extend servers. Tim Chown: Feels information is useful, especially if WG is shutting down. Gang Ren: Most of the work is related to address generation. Would like to see requirements for servers to support this Tomek: Supports work, while information available in product documentation, publishing here would be useful.. Francis Dupont: Unclear - something about a conference in May? Tomek asked about interest (about 8 raised hands). Will start adoption call. WG ended at +01:28:00. YouTube video of session available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVpV3PNVyhM.