Subject: [dhcwg] *DRAFT* dhc WG agenda

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2008 19:36:27 -0400

A new DRAFT agenda has been posted to http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08jul/agenda/dhc.html

Note that the agenda is *very* full.  Please review the I-Ds before  
the meeting.  Presenters, please be sure to focus on the important  
points that need to be discussed about your I-D, rather than  
summarizing the entire I-D.

Please contact [email-masked] to request an agenda slot.

- Ralph

                        DHC WG DRAFT agenda - IETF 72
                         0900-1130 2008-07-29 (Tue)
                    (Last revised 2008-07-22 07:28 PM ET)
                    -------------------------------------

Administrivia                                   Brzozowski/Droms 15  
minutes
   Agenda bashing; blue sheets; scribe; Jabber scribe
   Draft last call and adoption announcements

Layer 2 Relay Agent Information                 "B, Joshi"       05  
minutes
   <draft-ietf-dhc-l2ra-01>
   Ready for WG last call?

DHCP Reconfigure Extension Option               V. Vinokour      10  
minutes
   <draft-vinokour-dhcp-reconfigure-option-00>
   Initial WG review; accept as WG work item?

Use of Host Generating Interface ID in DHCPv6   F. Xia           10  
minutes
   <draft-xia-dhc-host-gen-id-00>
   Initial WG review; accept as WG work item?

Clarifying Handling of M&O Flags in IPv6 Ras    H. Cha           10  
minutes
   <draft-cha-ipv6-ra-mo-00>
   Initial WG review; accept as WG work item?

Secure DHCPv6 using CGA                         S. Jiang         10  
minutes
   <draft-jiang-dhc-Secure-DHCPv6-00>
   Initial WG review; accept as WG work item?

Lightweight DHCPv6 Relay Agents                 D. Miles         10  
minutes
   Initial WG review; accept as WG work item?

Service Identfiers Option for DHCPv6            H. Deng          10  
minutes
   <draft-deng-dhc-service-identifiers-01>
   Revised with WG input; accept as WG work item?

Extensions to Layer 2 Relay Agent               B. Joshi         10  
minutes
   <draft-ietf-dhc-l2ra-extensions-00>
   WG draft published; additional review required

DHCPv4 Leasequery by relay agent remote ID      B. Joshi         05  
minutes
   <draft-kurapati-dhc-leasequery-by-remote-id-01>
   Revised with WG input; accept as WG work item?

DHCPv4 bulk lease query                         B. Joshi         15  
minutes
   <draft-dtv-dhc-dhcpv4-bulk-leasequery-00>
   Initial WG review

IPv6 RADIUS attributes for DHCP based networks  B. Lourdelet     10  
minutes
   <draft-lourdelet-radext-ipv6-dhcp-00>
   Initial WG review; draft to be radext WG work item

NTP Server Option for DHCPv6                    B. Lourdelet     10  
minutes
   <draft-ietf-ntp-dhcpv6-ntp-opt-00>
   Initial WG review; draft to be ntp WG work item

Next PXE (pre-boot execution environment)       D. Thaler        10  
minutes
   Potential dhc WG work items

Authentication Extensions for the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
                                                 R. Pruss         10  
minutes
   <draft-pruss-dhcp-auth-dsl-03>
   Review changes to draft based on Philadelphia discussion
                                                                  
-----------
                                                                 150  
minutes
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

---

From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:16:35 -0400

Ralph Droms wrote:
> 
> Next PXE (pre-boot execution environment)       D. Thaler        10 minutes

Is there any additional information about this available anywhere?

I obviously have some considerable interest in this topic...

	-hpa

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 15:25:17 -0400

Dave - would you be willing to post some additional details to the  
mailing list?

- Ralph

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 15:28:36 +0300

>   Initial WG review; accept as WG work item?

Note that we have another WG, CSI, whose charter has a work item on 
securing DHCP with CGA. Or to be more exact, producing first a design 
analysis before actually picking a solution.

As a result, I don't think we want to adopt this document in the DHC WG.

But don't take this as a suggestion to avoid the discussion! The 
discussion on the list has been useful, and we should also talk about it 
in the meeting. Has a slot been requested from CSI?

Jari

---

From: JiangSheng 66104 <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 22:18:06 +0800

Hi, Jari,

Yes, there is a DHCP relevant chartered item in CSI work group as I
quate below. However, it is quite different from this draft. The chartered
item in CSI is mainly about how to use CGA in DHCP-managed networks. It is
covered by my another draft:
www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jiang-sendcgaext-cga-config-02.txt

The current CSI charter does not cover securing DHCP with CGA. That's why I
submit this draft to DHC group. It is mainly adopting CGA to serve DHCP
for security purpose. It is extension of DHCP, not extension of CGA. I think
it is better to do this work in DHC WG rather than CSI. Based on the above
understanding, I did not request a time slot in CSI

"Develop an informational document analysing different approaches to
allow SeND and CGAs to be used in conjunction with DHCP, and making
recommendations on which are the best suited. Recharter based on the
result of the analysis."

Best regards,

Sheng

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2008 16:16:33 +0100

You are right about how the charter text is written. However, I have 
been interpreting this a bit more broadly.

The other side is that the DHC charter also has a security item.

In any case, I do not think we can jump to solutions that involve CGAs 
without first doing the groundwork: what are the possible approaches to 
using CGAs in the conjunction of DHCP? Its hard to separate the use of 
CGA addresses in DHCP from the benefits to protecting the DHCP process.

Please ask for the CSI slot as well and see where the discussion takes us.

Jari

JiangSheng 66104 wrote:
>>> Secure DHCPv6 using CGA                         S. Jiang         
>>>       
>> 10 
>>     
>>> minutes

---

From: JiangSheng 66104 <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 04:46:53 +0800

Hi, Jari,

Please see my reply in lines.

Regards, Sheng

> The other side is that the DHC charter also has a security item.

I guess we can have discussions in both WGs and see how it is going. In
CSI WG, we may focus on how CGA should be configured/generated in DHCP
environment; at the same time, in DHC WG,we may focus on more how DHCP
should be extended to adopt CGA.
 
> CGA addresses in DHCP from the benefits to protecting the DHCP 

Between CGA and DHCP, there are actually two directions: a) using DHCP
to serve/enable the generation/usage of CGA on host, this should be the
work content of CSI; b) using CGA to serve the security of DHCP, this is
mainly about extend DHCP with new options, it should be work item of DHC.

> Please ask for the CSI slot as well and see where the discussion 

I did request a time slot in CSI to talk about the above a) point. I can
mention above b) point in my talk and clarify the different. Discussions
in both WG are useful to take these work forward.

Best regards,

Sheng
 
> > quate below. However, it is quite different from this draft. The 
> chartered> item in CSI is mainly about how to use CGA in DHCP-
> managed networks. It is
> > www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-jiang-sendcgaext-cga-config-
> 02.txt>

---

From: Jari Arkko <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 15:52:33 +0100

Jiang,

> mainly about extend DHCP with new options, it should be work item of DHC.
I hear you, and I see that the words you used for a and b are different. 
The problem is that I'm not convinced the solutions for a and be different.

For instance, let assume we had the capability for the host to suggest 
its own generated CGA as something that the DHCP server should allocate 
to the host. If we had this, then it would enable two things: (a) allow 
the use of CGA addresses with DHCP, and (b) allow the DHCP server to 
verify that all requests relating to this address come from the owner of 
the address.

Jari

---

From: marcelo bagnulo braun <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2008 11:12:12 +0200

> should be extended to adopt CGA.
I am all for disucssion, but i would certainly think it is better to not 
work in solutions untill we have some clearer view of the dhcp-cga 
interaction is i.e. till CSI does the work on the analysis.
Once the analysis is done, we can then decide what solutions to persue. 
I mean, there is no hurry for having solutions for dhcp cga interaction, 
right? we can do things in the right order in this case imho

Regards, marcelo

>>> The current CSI charter does not cover securing DHCP with CGA. 
>>>       
>> That's why I
>>     
>>> submit this draft to DHC group. It is mainly adopting CGA to 
>>>       
>> serve DHCP
>>     
>>> for security purpose. It is extension of DHCP, not extension of 
>>>       
>> CGA. I think
>>     
>>> it is better to do this work in DHC WG rather than CSI. Based on 
>>>       
>> the above
>>     
>>>> Note that we have another WG, CSI, whose charter has a work item 
>>>>         
>> on 
>>