idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-dhc-new-opt-msg-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Looks like you're using RFC 2026 boilerplate. This must be updated to follow RFC 3978/3979, as updated by RFC 4748. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** 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 the list of current Internet-Drafts -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? ** 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 separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. ** There are 4 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 1 character in excess of 72. ** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. RFC 2119 keyword, line 126: '... (128-254) MUST NOT be defined for u...' -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes draft-ietf-dhc-new-opt-msg-00.txt, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year == Line 118 has weird spacing: '...ombined into ...' -- No information found for rfcdraft-ietf-dhc-new-opt-msg-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 (December 2000) is 8531 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) -- Looks like a reference, but probably isn't: 'RFC 2131' on line 242 ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2434 (ref. '4') (Obsoleted by RFC 5226) ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2489 (ref. '5') (Obsoleted by RFC 2939) Summary: 9 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 5 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Network Working Group R. Droms 2 INTERNET-DRAFT Bucknell University 3 Obsoletes: draft-ietf-dhc-new-opt-msg-00.txt June 2000 4 Expires December 2000 6 Procedure for Defining New DHCP Options and Message Types 7 9 Status of this memo 11 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance with 12 all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 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 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 23 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt, and the list of 24 Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 25 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 27 Abstract 29 The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) provides a framework 30 for passing configuration information to hosts on a TCP/IP network. 31 Configuration parameters and other control information are carried in 32 tagged data items that are stored in the 'options' field of the DHCP 33 message. The data items themselves are also called "options." 35 DHCP protocol messages are identified by the 'DHCP Message Type' 36 option (option code 51). Each message type is defined by the data 37 value carried in the 'DHCP Message Type' option. 39 New DHCP options and message types may be defined after the 40 publication of the DHCP specification to accommodate requirements for 41 conveyance of new configuration parameters or to accommodate new 42 protocol semantics. This document describes the procedure for 43 defining new DHCP options and message types. 45 1. Introduction 47 The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) [1] provides a 49 DRAFT Defining New DHCP Options and Message Types June, 2000 51 framework for passing configuration information to hosts on a TCP/IP 52 network. Configuration parameters and other control information are 53 carried in tagged data items that are stored in the 'options' field 54 of the DHCP message. The data items themselves are also called 55 "options." [2] 57 DHCP protocol messages are identified by the 'DHCP Message Type' 58 option (option code 51). Each message type is defined by the data 59 value carried in the 'DHCP Message Type' option. 61 This document describes the procedure for defining new DHCP options 62 and message types. The procedure will guarantee that: 64 * allocation of new option numbers and message type numbers is 65 coordinated from a single authority, 66 * new options and message types are reviewed for technical 67 correctness and appropriateness, and 68 * documentation for new options and message types is complete and 69 published. 71 As indicated in "Guidelines for Writing an IANA Considerations 72 Section in RFCs" (see references), IANA acts as a central authority 73 for assignment of numbers such as DHCP option and message type codes. 74 The new procedure outlined in this document will provide guidance to 75 IANA in the assignment of new option and message type codes. 77 2. Overview and background 79 This document specifies procedures for defining new option codes and 80 message types. 82 2.1 New DHCP option codes 84 The procedure described in this document modifies and clarifies the 85 procedure for defining new options in RFC 2131 [2]. The primary 86 modification is to the time at which a new DHCP option is assigned an 87 option number. In the procedure described in this document, the 88 option number is not assigned until specification for the option is 89 about to be published as an RFC. 91 Since the publication of RFC 2132, the option number space for 92 publicly defined DHCP options (1-127) has almost been exhausted. 93 Many of the defined option numbers have not been followed up with 94 Internet Drafts submitted to the DHC WG. There has been a lack of 95 specific guidance to IANA from the DHC WG as to the assignment of 96 DHCP option numbers 98 The procedure as specified in RFC 2132 does not clearly state that 100 DRAFT Defining New DHCP Options and Message Types June, 2000 102 new options are to be reviewed individually for technical 103 correctness, appropriateness and complete documentation. RFC 2132 104 also does not require that new options are to be submitted to the 105 IESG for review, and that the author of the option specification is 106 responsible for bringing new options to the attention of the IESG. 107 Finally, RFC 2132 does not make clear that newly defined options are 108 not to be incorporated into products, included in other 109 specifications or otherwise used until the specification for the 110 option is published as an RFC. 112 In the future, new DHCP option codes will be assigned by IETF 113 consensus. New DHCP options will be documented in RFCs approved by 114 the IESG, and the codes for those options will be assigned at the 115 time the relevant RFCs are published. Typically, the IESG will seek 116 input on prospective assignments from appropriate sources (e.g., a 117 relevant Working Group if one exists). Groups of related options may 118 be combined into a single specification and reviewed as a set by the 119 IESG. Prior to assignment of an option code, it is not appropriate 120 to incorporate new options into products, include the specification 121 in other documents or otherwise make use of the new options. 123 The DHCP option number space (1-254) is split into two parts. The 124 site-specific option codes [2] (128-254) are defined as "Private Use" 125 and require no review by the DHC WG. Site-specific options codes 126 (128-254) MUST NOT be defined for use by any publicly distributed 127 DHCP server or client implementations. These option codes are 128 explicitly reserved for private definition and use within a site or 129 an organization. 131 The public option codes (0-127, 255) are defined as "Specification 132 Required" and new options must be reviewed prior to assignment of an 133 option number by IANA. The details of the review process are given 134 in the following section of this document. 136 2.2 New DHCP message types 138 RFC2131 does not specify any mechanism for defining new DHCP message 139 types. In the future, new DHCP message types will be documented in 140 RFCs approved by the IESG, and the codes for these new message types 141 will be assigned at the time the relevant RFCs are published. 143 Typically, the IESG will seek input on new message types from 144 appropriate sources (e.g., a relevant Working Group if one exists). 145 Prior to assignment of a message type code, it is not appropriate to 146 incorporate new message types into products, include the 147 specification in other documents or otherwise make use of the new 148 message types. 150 DRAFT Defining New DHCP Options and Message Types June, 2000 152 When the DHC WG has defined a procedure for the consideration and 153 review of changes to the DHCP specification that include the 154 definition of new message types, that procedure will be followed 155 prior to the acceptance of any new message types and the publication 156 of the specification of those message types in RFCs. 158 3. Procedure 160 The author of a new DHCP option or message type will follow these 161 steps to obtain approval for the option and publication of the 162 specification of the option as an RFC: 164 1. The author devises the new option or message type. 166 2. The author documents the new option or message type, leaving the 167 option code or message type code as "To Be Determined" (TBD), as 168 an Internet Draft. 170 The requirement that the new option or message type be documented 171 as an Internet Draft is a matter of expediency. In theory, the 172 new option or message type could be documented on the back of an 173 envelope for submission; as a practical matter, the specification 174 will eventually become an Internet Draft as part of the review 175 process. 177 3. The author submits the Internet Draft for review by the IESG. 178 Preferably, the author will submit the Internet Draft to the DHC 179 Working Group, but the author may choose to submit the Internet 180 Draft directly to the IESG. 182 Note that simply publishing the new option or message type as an 183 Internet Draft does not automatically bring the option to the 184 attention of the IESG. The author of the new option or message 185 type must explicitly forward a request for action on the new 186 option to the DHC WG or the IESG. 188 4. The specification of the new option or message type is reviewed by 189 the IESG. The specification is reviewed by the DHC WG (if it 190 exists) or by the IETF. If the option or message type is accepted 191 for inclusion in the DHCP specification, the specification of the 192 option or message type is published as an RFC. It may be 193 published as either a standards-track or a non-standards-track 194 RFC. 196 5. At the time of publication as an RFC, IANA assigns a DHCP option 197 code or message type code to the new option or message type. 199 DRAFT Defining New DHCP Options and Message Types June, 2000 201 4. References 203 [1] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 2131, Bucknell 204 University, March 1997. 206 [2] Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor 207 Extensions", RFC 2132, Lachman Associates, March 1997. 209 [3] Droms, R. and K. Fong, "NetWare/IP Domain Name and Information", RFC 210 2142, November 1997. 212 [4] Narten, T. and H. T. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an IANA 213 Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 2434, October 1998. 215 [5] Droms, R., "Procedure for Defining New DHCP Options", RFC 2489, 216 January 1999. 218 5. Changes from RFC2489 220 This document extends the procedures for defining new DHCP options 221 specified in RFC 2489 [5] to include the definition of new DHCP 222 message types. The language reserving site-specific option codes 223 has been strengthened to emphasize the requirement that site- 224 specific option codes must not be encoded in publicly distributed 225 DHCP implementations. 227 6. Security Considerations 229 Information that creates or updates an option code or message type 230 code assignment needs to be authenticated. 232 An analysis of security issues is required for all newly defined DHCP 233 options or message types. The description of security issues in the 234 specification of new options or message types must be as accurate as 235 possible. The specification for a new option or message type may 236 reference the "Security Considerations" section in the DHCP 237 specification [1]; e.g. (from "NetWare/IP Domain Name and 238 Information" [3]): 240 DHCP currently provides no authentication or security mechanisms. 241 Potential exposures to attack are discussed in section 7 of the 242 DHCP protocol specification [RFC 2131]. 244 DRAFT Defining New DHCP Options and Message Types June, 2000 246 7. IANA Considerations 248 RFC 2132 provided guidance to the IANA on the procedure it should 249 follow when assigning option numbers for new DHCP options or message 250 types. This document updates and replaces those instructions. In 251 particular, IANA is requested to assign DHCP option codes or message 252 type codes only for options or message types that have been approved 253 for publication as RFCs; i.e., documents that have been approved 254 through "IETF consensus" as defined in RFC 2434 [4]. 256 8. Author's Address 258 Ralph Droms 259 Computer Science Department 260 323 Dana Engineering 261 Bucknell University 262 Lewisburg, PA 17837 264 Phone: 570) 524-1145 265 EMail: droms@bucknell.edu 267 9. Expiration 269 This document will expire on December 31, 2000. 271 DRAFT Defining New DHCP Options and Message Types June, 2000 273 10. Full Copyright Statement 275 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved. 277 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 278 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 279 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and 280 distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, 281 provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 282 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 283 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 284 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 285 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing 286 Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined 287 in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to 288 translate it into languages other than English. 290 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 291 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 293 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 294 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 295 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT 296 NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION HEREIN 297 WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 298 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.