The DHC WG met on Tuesday 0900-1130 at IETF-88 (in Vancouver). The meeting started with Bernie Volz giving the WG Chairs Update and WG Status. Sheng Jiang and Suzanne Woolf volunteered to take minutes using Etherpad (these minutes are based on the Etherpad notes as well as personal notes taken by Bernie Volz). Tomek Mrugalski then presented the RFC-3315bis design team slides. Tomek: Kick off RFC3315 bis and Design Team Formation Tomek: - using issue tracker for WG - call volunteers to joint in "Editorial Team",5-6 persons Suresh Krishnan: site-local addrs still in use Tomek: ok, solved Jinmei Tatuya: we can go over the email archive for checking issues Tomek: big task Alex Petrescu: split the work Suresh: separate a mailing list for design team, ask authors of RFC3315 first, the issue trackers to be managed well Kim Kinnear: How are old RFCs deprecated? The following volunteered during the meeting to be on the design team: Suresh Krishnan, Andrew Yourtchenko, Alexandru Petrescu, Sheng Jiang, Daniel Migault, Marcin Siodelski, Tomek Mrugalski, and Bernie Volz. Michael Richardson volunteered immediately after the meeting. Tomek and Bernie will review and follow up with team. Note: Everyone is encouraged to provide RFC 3316/3633 corrections and areas with interoperability issues or needing clarification. Qi Sun presented the DHCPv4 over DHCPv6 Transport slides which summarized the solution and recent updates to the draft and some comments received since last draft. Kim: not fully clear on behavior of v4 client re: trying over v6 if v4 req fails? Timing and required vs. optional Suresh: it is clear designed, but not clear described in the draft Qi Sun: will improve it Ted Lemon: that's obvious Francis Dupont: any implementation? Qi: yes Ted: worth of considering dhcpv6 client connect to multiple servers Bernie: it may not be matter as long as the client can get address After an updated document is published, a Working Group Last Call will be initiated. Then Ian Farrer presented the Provisioning IPv4 Configuration over IPv6 only networks and discussed recent updates to the draft and a potential new evaluation criteria. Sheng: this should be discussed in softwire WG Ted: the question should be to focus on DHCPv4 over IPv6 Comments: this is not interest requirement although it can be implemented Bernie: the final question is DHCPv4 over Softwire vs. DHCPv4 over DHCPv6 WG prefers the latter The recommendation in the draft stands. The recommended solution can work because IPv6 is always available for a transport. After an updated document is published, a Working Group Last Call will be initiated. Shwetha Bhandari next presented the Access Network Identifier Options slides which included an overview, motivation and use cases, and recent updates to the draft. Kim: single instance is wrong Shwetha Bhandari: we can fix this Several questioned need for client specified options (relay OK) David (?): security consideration for client set this option? Suresh: it is not trustable, but based on topology can give some reference An updated document is expected. Sheng Jiang presented Secure DHCPv6, giving the background and history of the secure DHCPv6 work and an overview of the proposed solution, Jinmei: what is the relationship between this doc and the security part in RFC3315 Sheng: addition, support one to multiple model Michael Richardson: tried 10 years ago, appreciate this be worked out Size of messages with certificate is a concern? Consider URI/URL? Time is needed for security - how will this be addressed? Clarify that certificate OR public key, not both? Consider applicability and limitations (real time clock needed), large messages. IKE has similar issues and should consider using payload from them? Relay issues with large message size? The call for adoption will complete Nov 11 and be announced shortly thereafter. Qi Sun presented Handling Unknown DHCPv6 Messages with an overview of the recent changes. Kim: move the conclusion to early part to be clear After an updated document is published, a Working Group Last Call will be initiated. Suresh Krishnan presented Address Registration with a review of the recent changes. Authors think the draft is ready for WGLC Mikael: security consideration should be added for address ownership checking Erik Kline: what about temp address? Suresh: will add some text regarding to this Jinmei: use case Suresh: SLAAC address to get registered in DNS through DHCP server Bernie: what about lifetimes and removing the FQDN from DNS? Bernie: lack 'required' reply messages seems odd Ted: temp address is important, should add some text. This is clear use case for home net Erik: may be add PTR record An updated document is expected to address points raised. Sheng Jiang presented DHCPv6 Stateless Reconfiguration discussing the problem and proposed solution, and raised 4 questions for the WG. Sheng: question to the WG, agree the problem or not Ted: in principle it is, but any use cases require this function? Sheng: e.g. the DNS server renumbered Ted: only flash renumbering has the problem, but flash-renum is wrong Jinmei: personally agree the gap ???: proposed a use case ???: also provides use cases, in homenet with multiple upstreams Suresh: agree with the problem, but proposed another solution Bernie: provoke discussion in 6man or v6ops The discussion was mostly about whether this is a real problem and whether DHCP was the best way to solve it. It was suggested that if this was a real problem, it needs wider visibility. There seemed to be a small group of people who were very convinced about validity of the problem and were eager to spend time on it. Kim Kinnear presented DHCPv6 Active Leasequery slides which introduced what this is, why it is needed, related DHCPv4 work (which was never adopted), how it works, and decision trees about how to move forward. There was support for adopting the DHCPv6 work by those in attendance. The DHCPv4 part of the work was found not appealing to people in the room. Adoption call to be issued after IETF. Shwetha Bhandari presented DHCPv6 Dynamic Reconfigure, reviewing recent updates to draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure, the problem and use case. Ted: the draft creates a problem: dual stack should always connect to IPv6 only Ted: asked if on charter? Ted: what router vendors plan to implement (Cisco as authors are from there) Simon Perreault: likes the solution Bernie: maybe better to add a DNS64 option? Simon: the DNS64/NAT64 is there to not require client changes. Using a separate option requires client changes. Alexandru Petrescu presented Route Problem at Relay during DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation discussing typical deployments and requirements, with several possible solutions. Several hands think this is interesting work and should improve the draft Ted: the right place should be routing area, although it is DHC related. The WG meeting ended without Daniel Migault presenting the homenet Naming Architecture Options as we ran out of time. This will be presented in homenet. There were about 60 people in attendance. We had one remote participant using WebRTC client running on iPad.