Subject: [dhcwg] Re: Revised charter for DHC WG

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002 19:01:40 -0400

Here's a summary of comments received about the draft charter for the DHC 
WG.  We're going to discuss the charter at the DHC WG meeting in Yokohama, 
Tue 7/16 9AM JST.  Please review the comments and, if you don't plan to be 
at Tuesday's meeting, respond either to the mailing list or to me 
privately, so we can get your input foe the WG discussion.

-Ralph

                    Dynamic Host Configuration (dhc)

Description of Working Group:

This working group has developed DHCP for automated allocation,
configuration and management of IP addresses and TCP/IP protocol stack
parameters. DHCP is currently a "Draft Standard" (RFC2131,
RFC2132). The working group now has the following primary objectives:

* Develop additional authentication protocols within the framework
   defined in RFC3118, along with other mechanisms to mitigate the
   threat of attacks on DHCP clients and servers:
   - New RFC3118 protocols to address improved key management and
     improved scalability

Should the charter be more specific here. What new protocols
are needed? What problems need to be solved? The above is just a blank
check to do unspecified work (not good).

   - Provide security for messages passed between relay agents and
     servers
   - Consider solutions for specific threats such as use of nonce
     identifier to defend against DoS attacks through FORCERENEW from
     off-path attackers

This might be good, but it seems like a prerequisite is to have a
documented threat analysis. What are the primary threats to DHCP?
Which ones are the ones that are important to address? Only then does
it make sense to think about specific solutions.

* Complete the specification of DHCP for IPv6 (DHCPv6):
   - Gain acceptance and publication of current Internet Draft as
     Proposed Standard
   - Encourage independent implementations and conduct interoperability
     testing

Does this needs to be called out in the charter? WGs don't do
interoperability testing per se. But interoperability reports are
needed for advancing documents along the standards track.

On the other hand, it may well be in the WG charter to publicize the
status of new standards and encourage interoperability testing.

Finally, there was a third opinion that organization of interoperability
testing outside the IETF is a measure of interest in the protocol.
If interoperability testing doesn't take place without encouragement,
there may not be widespread interest in the protocol.

   - Revise specification and publish for acceptance as Draft Standard
     by 6/30/2002
   - Develop extensions to DHCPv6 for prefix delegation, DNS
     configuration, etc.
   - (Additional item) Determine the requirements for DHCP to support
      the dynamic renumbering of networks using fast path delegation as
      CPE front end between ISP and Private Networks.

Is the development of IPv6 functions in DHCP a good thing for the DHC
WG to take on in its charter?. Should the WG stick with
its core expertise, which is the DHC core protocols, and review
options motivated from outside the WG from the perspective of being
consistent with standard DHC operating practice.

Does defining new options require
significant input AND MOTIVATION from the customers of the option? In
the case of Prefix delegation, that seems like a broader problem,
where a DHC solution might well be appropriate. But I don't think this
should be driven by the DHC WG, since the problem is not inherently a
DHC problem.

Does the DHC WG really have the expertise to do the prefix delegation
work? The WG members do have  expertise to
review any options once it is determined what the prefix delegation
solution requires.

Perhaps better charter wording would say that the WG will review
options whose impetus comes from other WGs. A number of the specific
options mentioned above are really motivated by other WGs.

* Revise and submit the DHCP specification for acceptance as a Full
   Standard

If there is no realistic plan for doing this, it should be
left out of the charter.

The charter should not be a kitchen sink of all possible work
items. It should capture the priority items the WG will work on over
the next 12 months. One can easily recharter if something interesting
pops up that should get attention.

There was another opinion expressed that if moving to Full Standard
is not in the charter, it won't happen.

(Note from WG chair - this *draft* charter is intended as a starting
point for discussion; it's expected that the WG will drop some
items and perhaps add others to this draft.)

* Complete the specification and publish work in progress as
   standards:
   - Failover protocol
   - DHCP/DDNS interaction
   - SNMP MIB

What is the MIB item? Do we really need it?

The WG has been polled several times about this item, and every time
has expressed the desire to continue work on the DHCP server MIB
specification.

   - Other client and relay agent options

* Review new options for DHCP, as deemed appropriate by the working
   group chair and/or the Internet area directors

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