idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-dhc-new-opt-review-00.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 page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 1 longer page, the longest (page 6) being 59 lines Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** 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. ** There are 5 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 1 character in excess of 72. ** There are 42 instances of lines with control characters in the document. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == The copyright year in the RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line does not match the current year == The document seems to lack the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? (The document does seem to have the reference to RFC 2119 which the ID-Checklist requires). -- 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 (July 2000) is 8676 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) == Unused Reference: '2' is defined on line 352, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '3' is defined on line 356, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '4' is defined on line 360, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '6' is defined on line 367, but no explicit reference was found in the text == Unused Reference: '7' is defined on line 371, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1048 (ref. '3') (Obsoleted by RFC 1084, RFC 1395, RFC 1497, RFC 1533) -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '4' ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2373 (ref. '6') (Obsoleted by RFC 3513) -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '7' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '8' Summary: 7 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 8 warnings (==), 5 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 2000-07-14 13:33 New Option Review Carney Page 1 3 Network Working Group Michael Carney 4 Dynamic Host Configuration Working Group Sun Microsystems, Inc 5 Category: Standards Track July 2000 6 INTERNET-DRAFT Expires: January 2001 8 New Option Review Guidelines for DHCP 9 11 Status of this memo 13 This document is an Internet-Draft and is in full conformance 14 with all provisions of Section 10 of RFC2026. 16 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 17 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 18 other groups may also distribute working documents as 19 Internet-Drafts. 21 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 22 months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other 23 documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- 24 Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as 25 "work in progress." 27 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 28 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt 30 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 31 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 33 Comments regarding this draft should be sent to dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu 35 Abstract 37 This document outlines deficiencies that have become evident since 38 RFC 2131 and RFC 2132 were published regarding the allocation of 39 new option codes, the review of drafts covering these new option 40 codes, and the availability of option codes for new parameters. The 41 document then presents proposals for correcting these deficiencies. 43 1. Introduction 45 The rapid and wide-spread adoption of DHCP for IPv4 has lead to an 46 increasing number of new DHCP option and message type drafts under 47 DHC WG review. Experience with the current IANA option code 48 allocation process and the DHC WG draft review process has 49 identified a number of deficiencies, namely: 51 * We're rapidly going through the remaining option codes, and face 52 the possibility of exhausting the remaining codes before the 53 wide-spread adoption of IPv6 is achieved. 55 * There are no guidelines to help the DHC WG and the DHCP 56 community at large gauge the impact of the addition of new 57 message types and options. Some message types and options that 58 have been proposed require changes to the DHCP protocol itself 59 and/or current implementations. Because the adoption of such 60 message types or options has a greater impact on the DHCP 61 community, these message types and options require more 62 scrutiny by the DHC WG and IESG. 64 * Because some options or message types could change the DHCP 65 protocol itself, we need a method of explicitly communicating 66 the change of DHCP versions among implementations. Today, we 67 have no such method. 69 * There is no provision to preserve compatibility with earlier 70 versions of the protocol. 72 Inter-operability testing at Connectathon (1997-2000) has shown a 73 reduction in the level of interoperability between 74 implementations. These interoperability problems were found to 75 be due to confusion among implementors about how certain features 76 of the protocol should be implemented. Improvement (tightening) 77 of the general RFC 2131 and RFC 2132 drafts as well as the 78 tightening of new option drafts (using the guidelines defined in 79 this document) will help prevent these interoperability problems 80 from occurring as new implementations appear. 82 The specification of a RFC 2132-form option to carry the DHCP 83 protocol version and a proposal for a new, larger option namespace 84 is discussed in a companion document, "A New Option Namespace for 85 DHCP" [8]. 87 1.1 Conventions Used in the Document 89 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 90 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY" and "OPTIONAL" in this 91 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [5]. 93 2. Review Guidelines 95 We tackle the message type and option code review problem by 96 defining a set of categories based upon the impact the adoption 97 of an option or new message type will have on the DHCP community. 98 Option or new message drafts appropriately categorized aid 99 reviewers by helping them evaluate the draft. Once the DHC WG 100 and the draft author(s) agree on the category of the proposed 101 option or message type, that category will be listed explicitly 102 in the abstract of the option or message draft. 104 2.1. Hints for selecting the correct review category 106 Read the following hints and select the one which best describes 107 your option or message type, then proceed to Table 1 at the end of 108 this section for the suggested option review category. If, after 109 reading the following hints, you cannot find one that fits your 110 option or message type, read each of the category sections (2.2-2.5) 111 carefully. If you still are not sure which category your option 112 or message type belongs in, you can ask the DHC WG (if it still 113 exists) or the IESG for help in selecting the right category. 115 A) This option has no relationship to other existing or proposed 116 options. It would not require change of existing DHCP client, 117 server, or BOOTP relay agent implementations. It would not 118 change the version of the DHCP protocol. Its introduction 119 would not invalidate previous version(s) of the DHCP 120 protocol. The proposed option provides data which is 121 non-implementation specific and unrelated to network 122 configuration. 124 B) This message type has no relationship to other existing or 125 proposed message types. It would not require change of 126 existing DHCP client, server, or BOOTP relay agent 127 implementations. It would not change the version of the DHCP 128 protocol. The message type is useful to the DHCP community at 129 large. 131 C) This option has no relationship to other existing or 132 proposed options or message types. It would not require 133 change of existing DHCP client, server, or BOOTP relay 134 agent implementations. It would not change the version of the 135 DHCP protocol. Its introduction would not invalidate previous 136 version(s) of the DHCP protocol [8]. The information it carries 137 is network or system configuration related, but only for a 138 particular implementation or set of implementations from the 139 same vendor. 141 D) This option has no relationship to other existing or 142 proposed options or message types. It would not require change 143 of existing DHCP client, server, or BOOTP relay agent 144 implementations. It would not change the version of the DHCP 145 protocol. Its introduction would not invalidate previous 146 version(s) of the DHCP protocol [8]. It carries network or 147 system configuration data with is of general usefulness. 149 E) This option would have a implicit or explicit relationship 150 between it and other existing options or other proposed 151 options. It MAY change the behavior of existing DHCP client, 152 server, and/or BOOTP relay agent implementations. It would 153 not change the DHCP protocol version. Its introduction would 154 not invalidate previous version(s) of the DHCP protocol [8]. 156 Examples of implicit/explicit option relationships: 158 Option Related Options 159 ------ --------------- 160 Vendor Class Identifier Encapsulated vendor option(s) 161 User Class Identifier Standard option's scope 163 F) This message type would have a implicit or explicit 164 relationship between it and other existing message types or 165 options. Its adoption MAY change the behavior of existing DHCP 166 client, server, and/or BOOTP relay agent implementations. It 167 would not change the DHCP protocol version. Its introduction 168 would not invalidate previous version(s) of the DHCP 169 protocol [8]. 171 G) The addition of this option would change Table 3, "Fields and 172 options used by DHCP servers" and/or Table 5, "Fields and 173 options used by DHCP clients" in RFC 2131 [1], and thus 174 change the DHCP protocol. Pre-existing versions / 175 implementations would continue to interoperate. 177 H) The addition of this option or message type would invalidate 178 previous versions of the DHCP protocol [8], preventing client, 179 server, and/or BOOTP relay agents implementing the earlier 180 version(s) from functioning. 182 Table 1: Linking Hints to Review Category 184 Guidelines Review Category 185 ---------- --------------- 186 A None. Use SLP or an other alternative to 187 to register and deliver your information. 189 B Category One 191 C None. Use your Vendor-specific 192 option space for your option. 194 D Category One 196 E Category Two 198 F Category Two 200 G Category Three 202 H Category Four 203 2.2. Category One 205 Options in this category MUST NOT require changes to the DHCP 206 protocol, server, client, or BOOTP relay agent implementations. 207 They MUST NOT be dependent on other options being present or 208 absent. Earlier versions/implementations of the protocol continue 209 to interoperate in the presence of these options. Administrative 210 tools and DHCP protocol debugging tools which generically support 211 the default option types MAY need to be reconfigured in order to 212 permit management of the new option. Options of this type are 213 "payload" options, and MUST be of one of the default option types 214 for the option block form (RFC 2132 or RFC TBD_NS [8]). 216 Acceptance criteria: 218 Working group/IETF community review: Yes. 219 IANA option number registration: Yes. 220 Inter-operability testing (2 or more implementations) No. 221 DHCP protocol version change [8]: No. 223 2.3. Category Two 225 Options in this category MUST NOT require changes to the DHCP 226 protocol. They MAY require changes to server, client, relay agent 227 implementations, administrative tools, and DHCP protocol debugging 228 tools. They MAY depend on the presence or absence of other options, 229 as long as those other options are NOT in Table 3 or Table 5 of 230 RFC 2131 [1]. Any dependence on other options MUST be made 231 explicit in the new options draft. Existing versions / 232 implementations of the protocol continue to interoperate in the 233 presence of messages containing category two options. Options of 234 this type are "affect implementation" options. 236 An option MUST be designed in such a way as a reply/response from 237 non-compliant implementations can be easily distinguished from 238 those of compliant implementations. An option MUST NEVER change the 239 interpretation of existing options. The option draft author MUST 240 specify a compliant implementation's behavior if that implement- 241 ation receives a reply/response from a non-compliant implementation. 243 Acceptance criteria: 245 Working group/IETF community review: Yes. 246 IANA option number registration: Yes. 247 Inter-operability testing (2 or more implementations) Yes. 248 DHCP protocol version change [8]: No. 250 2.4. Category Three 252 Options in this category EXPLICITLY change the DHCP protocol. They 253 WILL require changes to server, client, and/or relay agent 254 implementations. They MAY depend on the presence or absence of 255 other options. Any dependence on other options MUST be made 256 explicit in the new option draft. The addition of such options 257 result in changes to Table 3, "Fields and options used by DHCP 258 servers" and/or Table 5, "Fields and options used by DHCP clients" 259 in RFC 2131 [1]. Existing versions / implementations of the 260 protocol continue to interoperate in the presence of traffic 261 containing category three options. Administrative tools MUST be 262 changed to support options of this type. DHCP protocol debugging 263 tools would need to be updated to recognize these options. Options 264 of this type are known as "affect protocol" options. The acceptance 265 of a Category Three option results in incrementing the DHCP version 266 option value (see a companion document, "A New Option Namespace 267 for DHCP" for details on the DHCP version option [8]. 269 An option MUST be designed in such a way as a reply/response from 270 non-compliant implementations can be easily distinguished from 271 those of compliant implementations. The option draft author MUST 272 specify a compliant implementation's behavior if that implement- 273 ation receives a reply/response from a non-compliant 274 implementation. An option MUST NEVER change the interpretation of 275 existing options. Category Three option implementations can easily 276 detect a non-compliant implementation due to the absence of the 277 DHCP version option or a lower than expected version number [8]. 279 Acceptance criteria: 281 Working group/IETF community review: Yes. 282 IANA option number registration: Yes. 283 Inter-operability testing (2 or more implementations) Yes. 284 DHCP protocol version change [8]: Yes. 286 2.5. Category Four 288 Options in this category would EXPLICITLY change the DHCP 289 protocol in a non-backward compatible manner. They would require 290 changes to ALL DHCP client, server, and/or BOOTP relay agent 291 implementations. They INVALIDATE one or more of the previous 292 versions of the BOOTP/DHCP protocol. 294 Because category four options invalidate previous versions of the 295 protocol, they are NOT candidates for acceptance. Changes to the 296 the DHCP protocol MUST BE backward compatible. 298 Acceptance criteria: 300 Working group/IETF community review: N/A. 301 IANA option number registration: N/A. 302 Inter-operability testing (2 or more implementations) N/A. 303 DHCP protocol version change [8]: N/A. 305 3. Security Considerations 307 Not Applicable. 309 4. Acknowledgements 311 The author would like to gratefully acknowledge the active 312 participation of the following DHCP future panel members: 313 Ralph Droms, Kester Fong, Pratik Gupta, Barr Hibbs, Kim Kinnear, 314 Ted Lemon, Nathan Lane, and Glenn Waters. The author would also 315 like to thank Thomas Narten and Bernie Volz for their review 316 comments. 318 5. Copyright 320 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2000). All Rights Reserved. 322 This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to 323 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it 324 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published 325 and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any 326 kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are 327 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this 328 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing 329 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other 330 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of 331 developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for 332 copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be 333 followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than 334 English. 336 The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be 337 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns. 339 This document and the information contained herein is provided on an 340 "AS IS" basis and THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET ENGINEERING 341 TASK FORCE DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING 342 BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE INFORMATION 343 HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF 344 MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 346 6. References 348 [1] Droms, R. "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 2131, 349 Bucknell University, March 1997. 350 352 [2] Alexander, S. and Droms, R., "DHCP Options and BOOTP 353 Vendor Extension", RFC 2132, March 1997. 354 356 [3] Prindeville, P. "BOOTP Vendor Information Extensions", RFC 1048, 357 McGill University, February 1988. 358 360 [4] Droms, R. "Procedure for Defining New DHCP Options", 361 363 [5] Bradner, "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement 364 Levels", RFC 2119, Harvard University, March 1997. 365 367 [6] Hinden R. and Deering, S., "IP Version 6 Addressing 368 Architecture", RFC 2373, Nokia and Cisco Systems, July 1998. 369 371 [7] Guttman E., Perkins C., Veizades J., and Day M., "Service 372 Location Protocol, Version 2", April 1999. 373 375 [8] Carney, M., "A New Option Namespace for DHCP", RFC TBD_NS, 376 July 2000. 378 7. Author's Address 380 Michael Carney 381 Sun Microsystems, Inc. 382 901 San Antonio Road 383 Palo Alto, CA 94303-4900 385 Phone: (650) 786-4171 386 Fax: (650) 786-5896 387 Email: Michael.Carney@sun.com 389 8. Expiration 391 This document will expire on January 31, 2001.