Subject: Re: [Dhcpv6bis] [dhcpv6bis] #86 (XML 3315): DHCPv6 authentication for Information request

From: "dhcpv6bis issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 21:20:19 -0000

#86: DHCPv6 authentication for Information request

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * status:  closed => reopened
 * resolution:  fixed =>

-- 
-------------------------------+------------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]  |       Owner:  [email-masked]
     Type:  task               |      Status:  reopened
 Priority:  P3 major           |   Milestone:  C awaiting consensus
Component:  XML 3315           |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                     |    Due Date:
-------------------------------+------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/86#comment:9>
dhcpv6bis <http://tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/>

---

From: "dhcpv6bis issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 21:41:18 -0000

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 I am reopening this ticket as there is a bit more cleanup work to do to
 remove the Authentication support (except for Reconfigure Key).

 Section 21. has introduction text that really doesn't match what
 Reconfigure Key provides.

 Perhaps we should just state here what is being provided (1) Security of
 Messages Sent Between Servers and Relay Agents and (2) protection against
 misconfiguration of a client caused by a Reconfigure message sent by a
 malicious DHCP server.

 And indicate that other earlier RFC 3315 Delayed Authentication (protocol
 2) has been obsoleted.

 I'm also not sure there is much benefit in referencing RFC 3118?

 21.1 is OK as is.

 21.2 needs some cleanup as it says "Two such protocols are defined here."
 but now there is really aren't only ONE (the Reconfigure Key).

 We may also want to add text that clarifies what has been deprecated from
 RFC 3315? In particular the following protocol:
    2    DHCPv6 Delayed Authentication   [RFC3315, Section 21.4]
 (Note that this is at http://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-
 parameters/bootp-dhcp-parameters.xhtml#authentication-protocol-id.)

 There is some text about this in 26. Obsoleted mechanisms, but perhaps
 this should also be stated in section 21 or 22.11 or both?

 Also, section 22.11 (Authentication Option) may also need a bit more
 cleanup?

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/86#comment:10>
dhcpv6bis <http://tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/>

---

From: "dhcpv6bis issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 09:36:53 -0000

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 I have done the further clearup. Rewrite the introduction text in section
 21 (new section 19), also indicated the deprecation in Section 21, 21.2
 and 22.11. However, this is no cleanup needed in the current 19.11
 (Authentication Option).

 I left this ticket open because I am not sure what to do regarding to the
 IANA registration. Should we add some text in Section 23, IANA
 Considertations, to ask IANA action on labeling the DHCPv6 Delayed
 Authentication obsoleted?

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/86#comment:11>
dhcpv6bis <http://tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/>

---

From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 11:09:09 +0000

Hi ... Yes, I think having IANA mark it deprecated would be a good idea.

Have not yet looked at cleaned up text, but thanks.

- Bernie

- Bernie (from iPad)

> On Apr 28, 2016, at 5:37 AM, dhcpv6bis issue tracker <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: "dhcpv6bis issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 03:53:27 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * status:  reopened => closed
 * resolution:   => fixed

Comment:

 Done. Added IANA action request for Obsolete Delayed Auth in Section 23.
 Strangely, there are two registries for these Authentication Option in
 IANA.

 http://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-parameters/bootp-dhcp-
 parameters.xhtml#authentication-protocol-id

    https://www.iana.org/assignments/auth-namespaces/auth-namespaces.xhtml

-- 
-------------------------------+------------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]  |       Owner:  [email-masked]
     Type:  task               |      Status:  closed
 Priority:  P3 major           |   Milestone:  C awaiting consensus
Component:  XML 3315           |  Resolution:  fixed
 Keywords:                     |    Due Date:
-------------------------------+------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/86#comment:12>
dhcpv6bis <http://tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/>