Subject: [dhcwg] Updated DHCPv4 Active Leasequery draft

From: Kim Kinnear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 16:21:18 -0500

Along about the middle of 2014 Ted reviewed the DHCPv6
Active Leasequery draft after it had passed WGLC. He found
a number of textual changes that were required, as well
as directing us to add TLS for additional security.

The DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 Active Leasequery drafts are about
as identical as we could make them other than the differences
required for the different base protocols, so we had to
update each of these drafts to respond to Ted's review
comments.

I have submitted the updated DHCPv4 Active Leasequery draft
just now:

draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery-02.txt

http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery/

It contains the following changes:

1. Removed "requirements by government agencies" as a motivational
reason to support active leasequeries.
                         
2. Draft now "updates" RFC6926, DHCPv4 Bulk Leasequery, to say what
to do if an unknown message is received over a TCP connection.  The
answer: drop the TCP connection.

3. Defined a "blocked TCP connection" in the glossary.

4. Instructed systems administrators to not allow a DHCPACTIVELEASEQUERY
message to be sent over a DHCP TCP connection to a system which
does not support DHCPv4 Active Leasequery (since the action to take
was undefined).

5. Instructed people who implemented DHCPv4 Bulk Leasequery but not
DHCPv4 Active Leasequery to implement at least the update to RFC6926;     
i.e., to drop the TCP connection if a message that is unknown    
is received.

6. Added TLS for data integrity, and defined a message (DHCPTLS)
to be used to request TLS over a TCP connection (as well as a status
code to indicate that TLS is not allowed: TLSConnectionRefused).

7. Simplified the Security section to largely rely on TLS as the
approach to security.

8. A number of paragraphs were changed to clarify the wording.  No 
changes to the operation of the protocol was made in these changes
for clarity.

Regards -- Kim

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 17:15:08 -0500

Thanks, Kim!