Subject: Minutes from Orlando WG meetings

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1999 08:22:45 -0500 (EST)

Here are the revised minutes, based on comments received on the draft
minutes I posted a couple of weeks ago.  Changes are indicated with <>.

- Ralph

=====

The DHC WG met twice in Orlando.  The first meeting was a one hour meeting
in which the failover protocol was discussed.  The second meeting was used
for discussion of general DHCP issues.

The failover meeting included a ten minute overview of the protocol, ten
minutes of collecting questions and the remainder of the meeting addressed
the collected questions.  Kim Kinnear (cisco) presented an overview of the
current protocol draft spec, the protocol status and recent developments.
The draft is progressing and identified problems are being hammered out.
There are two implementations (which are not yet interoperable).  The draft
authors feel that there is not widespread understanding of the current
draft.  Bernie Volz (Process Software) gave a brief review of the RUTS BOF
meeting (which is addressing the issue of <developing a new
transaction-oriented> internet protocol).

After the overview, a list of questions were collected.  The list has been
posted to the [email-masked] mailing list.  The remainder of the
meeting was used to generate answers to <questions 1-4 and 7>.  The other
questions will be discussed on the dhcp-serve list.

The second WG meeting included discussion of various DHCP issues.  Bernie
Volz began with a summary of the LDAP schema developers' meeting held in
November.  The attendees developed objectives and initial schema model,
common objects and a containment hierarchy.  The group considered
coordination with the Desktop Management Task Force (DMTF).  The next step
will be to write a draft describing the proposed schema.

Several old drafts were resurrected.  Mark Stapp (cisco) reviewed the
status of the "DHCP-DNS Interaction" draft, which he will revise to address
the open issue of name disambiguation.  The draft will then go back to the
WG for standards track review.  Pratik Gupta (IBM) revived the "Domain
Search" option.  Two issues arose: how to encode multiple domains in a
single option and should the option go into the current option space or the
new ("futures panel") option space.  The WG consensus was to specify
multiple options through length-encoded encapsulation and to include the
option in the current option space.  The specifics of the encapsulation
mechanism will be coordinated with the data representation standards being
developed by the futures panel.  Ralph Droms (Bucknell) reviewed the "User
Class" option.  Two issues will be moved to the mailing list: syntax and
semantics for encoding multiple classes in the option and how can a DHCP
server tell the client what classes are available to choose from.  A follow
up draft, specifying rules for address assignment using the "User Class"
option, was discussed.  The WG consensus was to review this draft for
acceptance as an informational RFC.  Erik Guttman (Sun) discussed the most
recent revision of the "SLP Server" option draft.  One issue about a flag
byte to override local configuration with the configuration in the DHCP
message was raised and will be discussed further on the mailing list.
Burcak Beser (3COM) discussed the use of the vendor class identifier by
VoIP equipment.  WG input was that the vendor class identifier may be
appropriate to identify the vendor of the equipment.  <Erik Guttman
suggested> SLP may be a better mechanism for providing more individualized
configurations through a bootfile.

Ralph Droms and Bill Arbaugh (Univ. of Pennsylvania) reviewed revisions to
the authentication protocol draft.  Peter Ford (Microsoft) expressed
concern that the current draft over-specifies the protocol by prescribing
some details of the implementation.  The WG discussed the issue of privacy
in the client identifying itself to a server before learning the identity
of the server; after a short discussion, the current protocol was found to
allow "server-first" identification if the client leaves any identification
out of the DISCOVER and the servers are configured to respond to anonymous
DISCOVER messages with an OFFER that includes some identification of the
server.  Finally, there was a request for an example specification of a
version of the authentication protocol using PK technology.

Mike Carney (Sun) gave a brief review of the activities of the futures
panel and the current draft.  Updates to the draft will be posted soon for
final discussion at the next WG meeting.  Kim Kinnear gave a brief summary
of the failover protocol meeting.  Finally, Ryan Troll (CMU) summarized the
current state of the IPv4 autoconfiguration drafts and asked for WG input
as to handling of the drafts - BCP vs. STD?  The conversation will continue
on the mailing list.