idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-dhc-fqdn-opt-01.txt: 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 (2024-04-27) 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. -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes draft-ietf-dhc-fqdn-opt-00.txt, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- No information found for rfcdraft-ietf-dhc-fqdn-opt-00.txt - is the name correct? -- 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 (October 1996) is 10056 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: 11 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 1 warning (==), 4 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 Obsoletes: draft-ietf-dhc-fqdn-opt-00.txt April 1996 5 Expires October 1996 7 An option for FQDNs in DHCP options 8 10 Status of this Memo 12 This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working 13 documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, 14 and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute 15 working documents as Internet-Drafts. 17 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 18 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 19 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 20 material or to cite them other than as ``work in progress.'' 22 To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the 23 ``1id-abstracts.txt'' listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow 24 Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net (Europe), 25 munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or 26 ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast). 28 Abstract 30 DHCP [DHCP] can be used to automate the process of configuring TCP/IP 31 host computers. However, some of the DHCP options carry IP addresses 32 rather than Fully Qualified Domain Names (FQDN). Use of IP addresses 33 constrains the DHCP client to use the addresses that were in use at 34 the time the client received its configuration information; these 35 addresses may change over time, (e.g., a server may be assigned a new 36 IP address), so that the IP addresses used by the client may become 37 invalid. 39 An alternative to passing IP addresses is to pass FQDNs instead of 40 (numeric) IP addresses. Doing this allows to defer binding between a 41 particular network entity (e.g., a server) and its IP address until 42 run time. As stated in [Carpenter:95], "Deferring the binding avoids 43 the risk of changed mapping between IP addresses and specific network 44 entities (due to changing addressing information). Moreover, 45 reliance on FQDNs (rather than IP addresses) also localizes to the 46 DNS the changes needed to deal with changing addressing information 47 due to renumbering." 48 This document defines a new DHCP option that allows the use of FQDNs 49 instead of IP addresses in DHCP options. 51 Definitions 53 The following defines the format of the FQDN option. 55 +----------+----------+ 56 | Code | Length | 57 +----------+----------+---------+-----------+-------------------- 58 |Subcode |Sublength | FQDN 59 +----------+----------+---------+-----------+-------------------- 61 .................. 63 +----------+----------+---------+-----------+-------------------- 64 |Subcode |Sublength | FQDN 65 +----------+----------+---------+-----------+-------------------- 67 The option consists of a Code and Length fields followed by a 68 variable number of triples. 70 The code, length, subcode, and sublength fields are all one octet 71 long. The FQDN field is of variable length. 73 The code value for this option is TBD. 75 The length field specifies the total length (in octets) of all the 76 triples carried in the option. 78 For each subcode carried in the FQDN option, the IP address in the 79 option represented by the subcode is replace by a FQDN. 81 The sublength field shall be set to the length (in octets) of the 82 FQDN carried in the option. The FQDN field carries the FQDN itself. 84 More that one triple with a given subcode may appear within a single 85 FQDN option. Options that can carry a list of IP addresses should be 86 coded as multiple subcodes in the FQDN option, to differentiate among 87 the variable-length FQDNs. 89 This option only allows the use of FQDNs for options that have been 90 elsewhere defined to carry IP addresses. 92 Example 94 The following illustrates how the FQDN option could be used to carry 95 FQDNs for 2 LPR Servers with FQDNs lpr1.xxx.org and lpr2.yy.org, and 96 one Network Information Server with FQDN nis.zzzz.org. 98 +---+---+ 99 |xx |41 | 100 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 101 |41 |12 | n | i | s | . | z | z | z | z | . | o | r | g | 102 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 103 | 9 |12 | l | p | r | 1 | . | x | x | x | . | o | r | g | 104 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 105 | 9 |11 | l | p | r | 2 | . | y | y | . | o | r | g | 106 +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 108 Security Considerations 110 Security issues are not discussed in this document. 112 References 114 [Carpenter:95] Carpenter, B., Rekhter, Y., "Renumbering considered 115 unavoidable", Internet Draft 117 [DHCP] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC1541, 118 October 1993 120 Acknowledgements 122 To be supplied. 124 Author Information 126 Yakov Rekhter 127 cisco Systems, Inc. 128 170 Tasman Dr. 129 San Jose, CA 95134 130 Phone: (914) 528-0090 131 email: yakov@cisco.com 133 Ralph Droms 134 Computer Science Department 135 323 Dana Engineering 136 Bucknell University 137 Lewisburg, PA 17837 138 Phone: (717) 524-1145 139 email: droms@bucknell.edu