Subject: [dhcwg] dhc WG report on draft-pruss-dhcp-auth-dsl

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 14:34:40 -0400

Jari Arkko (our advising Internet AD) has asked the WG to provide a  
technical analysis of the extensions to DHCP proposed in draft-pruss- 
dhcp-auth-dsl.  At the WG meeting in Dublin, Jari told us that he is  
looking for an analysis of the impact of the authentication extensions  
on the DHCP architecture.  What is the effect of the increased DHCP  
message sizes on clients, servers and relay agents?  What is the  
impact on other DHCP security mechanisms?  How is backward  
compatibility with already deployed DHCP clients, servers and relay  
agents accommodated?  How will the authentication extensions interact  
with relay agent options?  What Jari is explicitly *not* looking for  
is an analysis of whether draft-pruss-dhcp-auth-dsl is applicable for  
the use case.

We discussed the mechanics of preparing a report; noting that the WG  
has discussed these details on the WG mailing list during two WG  
meetings and on the mailing list, we will identify an ad hoc team that  
will review the WG discussions and write the technical analysis Jari  
has requested.  When the analysis is complete, it will be forwarded to  
Jari and a copy posted to the WG mailing list.

JohnB has agreed to head up the ad hoc team.  He'll announce the team  
membership and timeline for preparing the report following this e-mail.

I apologize for the confusion in the draft WG minutes about this  
process for responding to Jari's request.  My memory was incorrect  
about whether the plan had been announced during the WG meeting in  
Dublin; the minutes will be corrected before submission for publication.

- Ralph

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

---

From: "Alper Yegin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:04:44 +0300

With all due respect, isn't it mind boggling to see an idea that has been
pushed back by the community over and over again, finally to the tune of
50/85 at the "int-area" level, gets Nth chance for consideration? I'm
wondering what happened to getting the community support before embarking on
a new piece of work. Looking at the details of that proposal is not going to
help it progress, as it is a clear hack. But nevertheless, my concern is
this is not the proper use of IETF time, and certainly not the process IETF
normally follows. 

Alper

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Ralph Droms
> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 9:35 PM
> To: DHC WG
> Subject: [dhcwg] dhc WG report on draft-pruss-dhcp-auth-dsl
>

---

From: "Brzozowski, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 09:58:17 -0400

Thanks Ralph.

The ad hoc team will consist of the following volunteers:

Geoffrey Holan, TELUS
Ted Lemon, Nominum
John Jason Brzozowski, Comcast

Thanks to the volunteers and those who expressed interested.  I will post additional details surrounding our target completion dates, etc. shortly.  If there are any questions or comments please send them via email.

John
--------------------------------------------------- 
John Jason Brzozowski
Comcast Corporation
e) mailto:[email-masked]
m) 609-377-6594
---------------------------------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] on behalf of Ralph Droms
Sent: Tue 9/9/2008 2:34 PM
To: DHC WG
Subject: [dhcwg] dhc WG report on draft-pruss-dhcp-auth-dsl

- Ralph