Subject: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-proxyserver-opt-00

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 07:26:00 -0500

This message announces a WG last call on "DHCP Option for Proxy Server
Configuration" <draft-ietf-dhc-proxyserver-opt-00>.  The last call will
conclude at 5PM EST on Friday, 4/16/04.

Please respond to this WG last call.  If you support acceptance of the
document without change, respond with a simple acknowledgment, so that
support for the document can be assessed.

draft-ietf-dhc-proxyserver-opt-00 defines a new DHCP option, which can be
used to configure the TCP/IP host's Proxy Server configuration for standard
protocols like HTTP, FTP, NNTP, SOCKS, Gopher, SLL and etc..  This draft is
available as
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-proxyserver-opt-00.txt

- Ralph Droms 

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

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 12:56:51 -0500

I have a bunch of suggested changes to this draft, which fall into 
three categories:

1. A single change to the protocol itself.
2. Editorial changes - I think there was some extra text in this draft 
explaining proxy servers that isn't needed, and generate questions 
during the IESG review, so I'm suggesting that it be deleted.
3. Copyediting.   There were some minor spelling and grammatical errors.

The change to the protocol is that it currently specifies an 
encapsulation of suboptions, like option 82, but allows for the 
appearance of multiple suboptions, which is different than the behavior 
specified for handling options in RFC3396.   This is not a huge 
problem, but it probably requires additional code in DHCP servers and 
clients that isn't necessary, so I'd suggest changing it so that if you 
want to specify multiple proxy servers for the same protocol, you 
should just list more than one IP address/port tuple in the suboption 
for that protocol.

I've enclosed a diff for all the changes.

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2004 17:27:36 -0400

One technical question: rather than allowing multiple instances of the same
suboption, would it be possible to allow multiple servers to be specified in
one instance of the suboption?  If so, the  number of proxy servers in the
suboption would be reflected in the suboption length field, which would be
6*number-of-servers.

I also have some editorial suggestions...

The document should be revised to reflect the new boilerplate in RFC 3667.

Use "suboption" throughout the document.

I don't think HTTP, FTP, SSL, etc. need to appear in the Terminologies
section.  Those definitions could be replaced with references to the
relevant RFCs in the body of the document.

Section 2, first paragraph; replace "does not include Proxy(HTTP, FTP, NNTP,
Gopher etc.)server configuration to be used" with "does not include a list
of proxy servers for HTTP, FTP, NNTP, Gopher and other protocols to be used".

Section 2, second paragraph: replace "Following Figure, depicts..." with
"The following figure depicts..."

Section 2, third paragraph: replace "special software typically runs on
firewall machine" with "process that typically runs on a firewall"

Section 2, fourth paragraph: replace "Proxy server" with "A proxy server".

Section 4, second paragraph: replace "Code is TBD as per RFC-2939" with
"Code is TBD and will be assigned by IANA according to RFC 2939"

Section 4, fourth paragraph: the end of the last sentence should be modified
to allow for new protocol numbers to be defined in the future.

Section 4, fifth paragraph: should both the proxy server address and port
nubmer be in network byte order?

Sections 8 and higher should be renumbered (sections 6 and 7 are missing).

---

From: "Bernie Volz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2004 13:52:32 -0400

Perhaps this has been discussed in the past and discarded, but what
about removing the need for yet-another-list? If the option where
changed not to use sub-options at all but instead carried tuples of:
	2-octets of well-known protocol number
	4-octets of proxy server internet address
	2-octets of proxy server port number
The option length would then be multiples of 8 bytes.

For example:
	Option Header:	TBD-option-code,24-bytes
	Proxy for HTTP:	80,http-proxy-server-1,8080
	Proxy for HTTP:	80,http-proxy-server-2,8080
	Proxy for FTP:	21,ftp-proxy-server-1,21

This avoids the need for future protocols to have an enumeration and the
current "getservicename" calls can be used to find the port numbers.

Otherwise, I recommend moving this draft forward.

- Bernie
-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Ted Lemon
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 1:57 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on
draft-ietf-dhc-proxyserver-opt-00

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:19:52 -0400

Ted and I both made the same suggestion about carrying a list of servers in
one instance of the suboption, rather than multiple instances of the same
suboption each carrying one server.  Is this change acceptable to the WG
(please respond yes or no)?

- Ralph

At 12:56 PM 4/7/2004 -0500, Ted Lemon wrote:
>I have a bunch of suggested changes to this draft, which fall into three 
>categories:
>
>explaining proxy servers that isn't needed, and generate questions during 
>the IESG review, so I'm suggesting that it be deleted.
>The change to the protocol is that it currently specifies an encapsulation 
>of suboptions, like option 82, but allows for the appearance of multiple 
>suboptions, which is different than the behavior specified for handling 
>options in RFC3396.   This is not a huge problem, but it probably requires 
>additional code in DHCP servers and clients that isn't necessary, so I'd 
>suggest changing it so that if you want to specify multiple proxy servers 
>for the same protocol, you should just list more than one IP address/port 
>tuple in the suboption for that protocol.
>

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:21:21 -0400

Bernie made a suggestion about the syntax of the option.  Any comment from 
the WG?

- Ralph

---

From: "Richard Barr Hibbs" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:30:35 -0700

I support the proposed change to carry a list or servers
rather than multiple instances of a single-server-only
suboption

--Barr

> From: Ralph Droms
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2004 08:20
>

---

From: "Richard Barr Hibbs" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:49:11 -0700

I agree with Bernie's suggestion, but hope that the final
text includes BOTH a drawing of the proposed option AND one
or two examples.

--Barr

example:

         1     2          4                8        10
  +------+-----+----------+----- ... ------+---------+---
...
  |Option| Len |Proto Nbr.|Proxy IP Address|Port Nbr.|
  +------+-----+----------+----- ... ------+---------+---
...
               /<-------- First Proxy Tuple -------->/

   Option Header:  option-code: (TBD), Len: 24 (octets)
     Proxy for HTTP: Proto: 80, Proxy IP:
http-proxy-server-1, Port: 8080
     Proxy for HTTP: Proto: 80, Proxy IP:
http-proxy-server-2, Port: 8080
     Proxy for FTP:  Proto: 21, Proxy IP:
ftp-proxy-server-1,  Port: 21

> Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2004 08:21
>