Subject: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-vpn-option-09.txt

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 15:39:34 -0400

This message announces a WG last call on "Virtual Subnet Selection
Options for DHCPv4 and DHCPv6" <draft-ietf-dhc-vpn-option-09.txt>.
The last call will conclude at 1700PDT on September 29, 2008.  This
document is intended for publication as a Draft Standard.

Please respond to this WG last call.  If you support acceptance of the
document without change, respond with a simple acknowledgment, so that
support for the document can be assessed.  Lack of discussion does not
represent positive support.  If there is no expression of support for
acceptance during the WG last call, the document will not be advanced
to the IESG.

draft-ietf-dhc-vpn-option-09.txt defines a Virtual Subnet Selection
(VSS) option for DHCPv4 and DHCPv6, and a DHCPv4
relay-agent-information sub-option.  These are intended for use by
DHCP clients, relay agents, and proxy clients in situations where VSS
information needs to be passed to the DHCP server for proper address
or prefix allocation to take place.  For the DHCPv4 option and
relay-agent-information sub-option, this memo documents existing usage
as per RFC 3942 [RFC3942].  This draft is available as
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-vpn-option-09.txt

- John Brzozowski, Ralph Droms
   dhc WG chairs

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

---

From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 18:27:04 -0400

Previously, I had sent:

The following are all minor and could probably be addressed in a note to
the IESG or even ignored:

- Section 2, Terminology
Add definition for "DHCP Proxy"?

Remove "third-party" from definition of "DHCP relay agent". Also, add
reference to RFC 3315.

- Section 4, Overview of Virtual Subnet Selection Usage
In first paragraph, for "This will affect a relay agent, in that it will
have to ensure that the packets sent to and received from the DHCP
client flow over the correct VPN", I wonder whether this wording implies
more than just DHCP traffic. Technically, all a relay agent is concerned
with is DHCP traffic. But as a relay is often on a router ....

In the 2nd (full) paragraph on page 8, "in" is missing "... or a VSS
option [in] the Relay-forward message ...".

- Section 7.2, Returning the DHCPv4 Sub-Option
In the first paragraph, understand should be understands in "... whether
or not the DHCPv4 server understand[s] the VSS sub-option."

- Section 8, Security
The wording of "The VSS option could be used by a client in order to
obtain an IP address from a VPN other than the one where it should." is
a bit ackward I feel? Perhaps just state that a client's use of the
option would allow it to obtain address(es) on any and multiple VPNs.

- Section 9, IANA
Usually this section requests what IANA should do so I'd change "IANA
has assigned the value of TBD for the DHCPv6 VSS option defined in
Section 3.3." to "IANA is requested to assign a value to the DHCPv6 VSS
option defined in Section 3.3 [from the DHCPv6 option registry]."

Again, all of these are extremely minor and I would like to see this
document move forward. 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Ralph Droms (rdroms)
Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 3:40 PM
To: DHC WG
Subject: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-vpn-option-09.txt