Subject: [dhcwg] Adoption call for draft-volz-dhc-relay-server-security-02 - Respond by Sep. 27

From: Tomek Mrugalski <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 00:21:46 +0200

Hi,

The idea for this draft came up during discussions related to DHCP
privacy. This draft has been presented previously and got positive
reception. It was discussed on the list. There are currently no IPR
disclosures filled against this draft. Suresh raised an issue about the
earlier version and authors believe it is addressed in -02. They also
believe it is ready for adoption call. So here it goes:

This message initiates two weeks long WG adoption call on:

Title: Security of Messages Exchanged Between Servers and Relay Agents
Authors  : Bernie Volz, Yogendra Pal
Filename : draft-volz-dhc-relay-server-security-02.txt
Pages    : 8
Date     : 2016-09-08

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-volz-dhc-relay-server-security-02

Substantive comments and statements of support for adopting this
document should be directed to the mailing list. Editorial suggestions
can be sent to the authors. Since Bernie is co-author, I will determine
the consensus after Sep. 27th.

Tomek

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2016 17:28:53 -0400

I'm in favor of adopting this as a work item.   A quick review reveals that
perhaps the first paragraph of the security considerations section should
be deleted, since it's followed by quite a bit of text, and hence isn't
accurate.   Otherwise it looks good, but I should give it a more thorough
review.

On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 6:21 PM, Tomek Mrugalski <[email-masked]
> wrote:

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

---

From: Lishan Li <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 22:29:30 +0800

I'm also favor of this work as a work item.
Secure DHCPv6 secures the DHCPv6 exchanges between the client and server.
And this work secures the DHCPv6 exchanges between the relay and the server
to defend against pervasive monitoring attack.

Best Regards,
Lishan
2016-09-23 5:28 GMT+08:00 Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>:

> I'm in favor of adopting this as a work item.   A quick review reveals
> that perhaps the first paragraph of the security considerations section
> should be deleted, since it's followed by quite a bit of text, and hence
> isn't accurate.   Otherwise it looks good, but I should give it a more
> thorough review.
>
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 6:21 PM, Tomek Mrugalski <
> [email-masked]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>

---

From: Tomek Mrugalski <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 08:28:28 +0200

It's a bit late, but here it goes. I have reviewed this document briefly
and it looks useful. With my co-chair hat off, I support adoption of
this draft.

Tomek

---

From: Tomek Mrugalski <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 08:44:10 +0200

Since Bernie is co-author, I have determined the consensus myself. This
draft has been presented before and the general feeling in the room was
that it's useful. This has now been confirmed on the mailing list. I'm
not aware of any negative opinions or objections raised.

As such I declare this adoption call a successful one. Authors, please
upload your draft as WG item.

Thanks you to everyone who has responded.

Tomek