Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Question Regarding RFC 4361

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:04:11 -0700

On Oct 11, 2007, at 12:23 PM, Leino, Tammy wrote:
>    DHCPv4 clients MUST NOT use client identifiers based solely on  
> layer
> two
>    addresses that are hard-wired to the layer two device (e.g., the
>    ethernet MAC address) as suggested in RFC 2131, except as  
> allowed in
>    sections 9.2 and 9.4 of RFC 3315.

Oh no, you're right.   That should be referring to section 9.4, not  
section 9.2.   The reference to section 9 later in that paragraph is  
correct, but that reference is just wrong.   Sorry about that.

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

---

From: "Leino, Tammy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 07:16:27 -0600

Section 9.2 discusses DUID-LLT, so I think it is also relevant, because
it too is using the link-layer.  Section 9.4 discusses DUID-LL.  I think
this paragraph should refer to both 9.2 and 9.4, or just refer to
section 9 and call it a day.

---

From: "David W. Hankins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:03:47 -0700

> section 9 and call it a day.

I'd prefer any update to the RFC to say 'A client MAY use any DUID
as described in section 9, but SHOULD NOT use a DUID-LL as a straight
duplication of the client's chaddr' (but maybe not in those precise
words).

I gave my reasons earlier; we've got an operational mess that hasn't
quite gotten cleaned up regarding the DHCPv4 client identifier being
used as a chaddr duplicate, and different and incompatible
server<->client behaviour as a result.  Adding DUID-LL on top of that
as a third identical field is just throwing that situation into
triplication.

Are you writing a short draft to update this Tammy?  I think it would
be a good thing to get started, and maybe talk about at the next IETF.

-- 
Ash bugud-gul durbatuluk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.
-- 
David W. Hankins	"If you don't do it right the first time,
Software Engineer		     you'll just have to do it again."
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.		-- Jack T. Hankins
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

---

From: "Leino, Tammy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:14:33 -0600

Thanks David.

I would be happy to help update this RFC.  I have never actually worked
on an RFC before.  Can you please direct me to the guidelines for
writing drafts to update existing RFCs?

---

From: "David W. Hankins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 09:26:07 -0700

> writing drafts to update existing RFCs?

I don't think there are any special guidelines for updates to previous
RFC's.  It's just a new standards-track draft that says it's an
update.

I think the best place to start is the IETF's pages;

	http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-guidelines.html
	http://www.ietf.org/ID.html

There's also usually an intro lecture given at every IETF meeting, but
that's not until the /next/ IETF meeting, so...

Also unless you're particularly attached to the Old Ways, the easiest
way I've found of editing a draft has been xml2rfc;

	http://xml.resource.org/

They have example xml in the source tarball you can look at, which
makes it trivial to pick up and go.

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:01:41 -0700

> section 9 and call it a day.

It does refer to section 9 as a whole later in the paragraph.   It  
looks like this particular reference was to specifically call out  
DUID-LT, but we got it wrong.   :'(

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:31:41 -0700

I would suggest actually updating RFC 4361 rather than writing a  
draft that refers to 4361 and corrects the error.   I'd be happy to  
work with Tammy on that.   David, do you have something other than  
the text you proposed that you want to add, or are we just talking  
about this one change?

---

From: "Leino, Tammy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:04:04 -0600

I would also like to add clarification and possible recommendations for
using the same or different IAIDs for IPv4 and IPv6 on the same
interface.

---

From: "David W. Hankins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:03:36 -0700

On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 11:31:41AM -0700, Ted Lemon wrote:
> work with Tammy on that.

I have no preference really; so long as it reaches WG last call in one
form or the other, this sounds like a fine thing.

> David, do you have something other than  

I know of no other similar edits at the moment.

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 13:09:29 -0700

> using the same or different IAIDs for IPv4 and IPv6 on the same

Seems fine.   Would you be satisfied with a recommendation that  
different IAIDs be used for DHCPv4 and DHCPv6, or are you thinking  
that we should require that conforming implementations use the same  
IAID for any given interface in both DHCPv4 and DHCPv6?

---

From: "Leino, Tammy" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:15:58 -0600

I think I would to consider the implications of using both methods under
various circumstances, then make recommendations based on those
findings.