idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-dhc-fqdn-opt-00.txt: ** The Abstract section seems to be numbered Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Cannot find the required boilerplate sections (Copyright, IPR, etc.) in this document. Expected boilerplate is as follows today (2024-05-01) according to https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info : IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.a: This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 2: Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 3: This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Missing expiration date. The document expiration date should appear on the first and last page. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about Internet-Drafts being working documents. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about 6 months document validity -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of current Internet-Drafts. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of Shadow Directories. == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an Introduction section. ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. ** The abstract seems to contain references ([DHCP]), which it shouldn't. Please replace those with straight textual mentions of the documents in question. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (February 1996) is 10303 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1541 (ref. 'DHCP') (Obsoleted by RFC 2131) Summary: 12 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group Yakov Rekhter, Cisco Systems 3 Internet Draft Ralph Droms, Bucknell University 4 Expiration Date: August 1996 February 1996 6 FQDN DHCP Option 7 draft-ietf-dhc-fqdn-opt-00.txt 9 1. Status of this Memo 11 This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working 12 documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, 13 and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute 14 working documents as Internet-Drafts. 16 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 17 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 18 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 19 material or to cite them other than as ``work in progress.'' 21 To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the 22 ``1id-abstracts.txt'' listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow 23 Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net (Europe), 24 munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or 25 ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast). 27 2. Abstract 29 DHCP [DHCP] can be used to automate the process of configuring TCP/IP 30 host computers. However, some of the DHCP options carry IP addresses 31 rather than Fully Qualified Domain Names (FQDN). Use of IP addresses 32 constrains the DHCP client to use the addresses that were in use at 33 the time the client received its configuration information; these 34 addresses may change over time, (e.g., a server may be assigned a new 35 IP address), so that the IP addresses used by the client may become 36 invalid. 38 An alternative to passing IP addresses is to pass FQDNs instead of 39 (numeric) IP addresses. Doing this allows to defer binding between a 40 particular network entity (e.g., a server) and its IP address until 41 run time. As stated in [Carpenter:95], "Deferring the binding avoids 42 the risk of changed mapping between IP addresses and specific network 43 entities (due to changing addressing information). Moreover, 44 reliance on FQDNs (rather than IP addresses) also localizes to the 45 DNS the changes needed to deal with changing addressing information 46 due to renumbering." 47 This document defines a new DHCP option that allows the use of FQDNs 48 instead of IP addresses in DHCP options. 50 3. Definitions 52 The following defines the format of the FQDN option. 54 +----------+----------+ 55 | Code | Length | 56 +----------+----------+---------+-----------+-------------------- 57 |Subcode |Sublength | FQDN 58 +----------+----------+---------+-----------+-------------------- 60 .................. 62 +----------+----------+---------+-----------+-------------------- 63 |Subcode |Sublength | FQDN 64 +----------+----------+---------+-----------+-------------------- 66 The option consists of a Code and Length fields followed by a 67 variable number of triples. 69 The code, length, subcode, and sublength fields are all one octet 70 long. The FQDN field is of variable length. 72 The code value for this option is TBD. 74 The length field specifies the total length (in octets) of all the 75 triples carried in the option. 77 For each subcode carried in the FQDN option, the IP address in the 78 option represented by the subcode is replace by a FQDN. 80 The sublength field shall be set to the length (in octets) of the 81 FQDN carried in the option. The FQDN field carries the FQDN itself. 83 More that one triple with a given subcode may appear within a single 84 FQDN option. Options that can carry a list of IP addresses should be 85 coded as multiple subcodes in the FQDN option, to differentiate among 86 the variable-length FQDNs. 88 This option only allows the use of FQDNs for options that have been 89 elsewhere defined to carry IP addresses. 91 4. Example 93 The following illustrates how the FQDN option could be used to carry 94 FQDNs for 2 LPR Servers with FQDNs lpr1.xxx.org and lpr2.yy.org, and 95 one Network Information Server with FQDN nis.zzzz.org. 97 +---+---+ 98 |xx |41 | 99 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 100 |41 |12 | n | i | s | . | z | z | z | z | . | o | r | g | 101 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 102 | 9 |12 | l | p | r | 1 | . | x | x | x | . | o | r | g | 103 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 104 | 9 |11 | l | p | r | 2 | . | y | y | . | o | r | g | 105 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 107 5. Security Considerations 109 Security issues are not discussed in this document. 111 6. References 113 [Carpenter:95] Carpenter, B., Rekhter, Y., "Renumbering considered 114 unavoidable", Internet Draft 116 [DHCP] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC1541, 117 October 1993 119 7. Acknowledgements 121 To be supplied. 123 8. Author Information 125 Yakov Rekhter 126 cisco Systems, Inc. 127 170 Tasman Dr. 128 San Jose, CA 95134 129 Phone: (914) 528-0090 130 email: yakov@cisco.com 132 Ralph Droms 133 Computer Science Department 134 323 Dana Engineering 135 Bucknell University 136 Lewisburg, PA 17837 137 Phone: (717) 524-1145 138 email: droms@bucknell.edu