Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [Ietf-krb-wg] WG Last Call: draft-sakane-dhc-dhcpv6-kdc-option-08

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 06 Jun 2010 22:28:43 -0400

--On Tuesday, April 06, 2010 08:10:00 AM -0400 Jeffrey Hutzelman 
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>> 1-2: prividing an IPv4 address. section 2.2 (KDC Sub-Option)
>>
>>  Jeff>
>>    > It is not recommended to provide an IPv4 address.
>>
>>    Since most Kerberos deployments are currently IPv4-only, I'm not
>>    convinced this advice is appropriate.  If we believe as a WG that
>>    this is appropriate, then the phrase "not recommended" should be
>>    elevated to RFC2119 requirements language (i.e. uppercase), and
>>    this requirement should be stated separately, rather than as an
>>    aside to the description of the sub-option length.
>>
>>  Shoichi>
>>    If my understanding is correct, it was the consensus of the krb-wg
>>    meeting in Stockholm.
>
> I will have to look into this.

My reading of the krb-wg minutes from IETF75 shows some support for the 
notion that it should be possible to provide both IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, 
but none for the idea that providing an IPv4 address be NOT RECOMMENDED.

However, I'm not sure how to reconcile this with Ted's comments about lack 
of support in DHCPv6 for sending IPv4 addresses at all.  This issue seems 
like a showstopper; we need to reach some sort of solution that everyone 
can accept.

If you believe you have resolved most of the other issues raised during 
WGLC, please do submit another version of the draft.  Please make sure that 
the issues raised in my original review have been addressed, with the 
following exceptions:

- My comments about initial values for sub-option codes no longer apply,
  in light of the subsequent discussion about eliminating sub-options
  in favor of using multiple option codes.

- My comments about language describing the use of the Option Request
  Option no longer apply, in light of Ted's comment (with which I agree)
  about removing language specifying how ORO works.

- I saw no response to my comments regarding the MUST in section 3.1,
  in which I suggested removing a fairly large amount of text.  You should
  leave this unchanged for now; I would like to see some comments from
  other WG members on this topic.

- I suggested that Section 4 is unnecessary, but again, so no comments
  from the rest of the WG.  Please leave this alone, at least for now.

-- Jeff