Subject: [dhcwg] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery-06: (with COMMENT)

From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 09:47:30 -0700

Stephen Farrell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery-06: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think I recognise almost all of the security/privacy text we
ended up with for the dhcpv6 equivalent - thanks for getting all
that right!

For Alissa and Ben - I'd be happier too if only secure mode
existed here, but there was an argument (which I've forgotten)
as to why we needed the insecure one - I think it boiled down to
doing it on the same machine or that they'd do it no matter what
the RFC says. (But I may be mis-remembering.) So while I agree
with your points on that, I'm not sure we're (i.e. we as IESG)
right to fight the battle again over this one when they're
making this the same as the dhcpv6 one we already approved.
Anyway, if you do fight the battle over and win, we should
probably ensure any resulting edits also get done to the dhcpv6
equivalent spec which is with the RFC editor still.

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 12:49:58 -0400

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

I had a similar thought when reading the draft, which is why I didn't
comment further, although did notice the insecure mode as a potential
issue.

-- 

Best regards,
Kathleen

---

From: Brian Haberman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:27:37 -0400

All,

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

When the DHCPv6 equivalent draft came to the IESG, one of the authors
responded to Stephen's point on the insecure mode with this:

        We did not consider RFC 7258 as particularly relevant to this
	protocol since we expect that the requestors of this protocol
	will be processing elements that sit next to the DHCP server
	and would have direct access to the DHCP server's database (if
	the DHCP server allowed direct access to its database).

It is pretty clear that the use of this protocol is protected via
physical location and access controls.

Regards,
Brian

---

From: Kathleen Moriarty <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 13:31:50 -0400

Sent from my iPhone

> On Sep 30, 2015, at 1:27 PM, Brian Haberman <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> All,
> 

That makes perfect sense.  I added a comment to my no objection to explain why I didn't have an issue.  This in my opinion is sensible risk management, but I have been in the position to make this sort of decision when in operational roles leading security for organizations.

Thanks,
Kathleen