idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-dhc-options-opt127-03.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 (2024-03-28) 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 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 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 80: '... The client MAY list the options in ...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 82: '... but MUST try to insert the requeste...' -- The draft header indicates that this document obsoletes draft-ietf-dhc-options-opt127-02.txt, but the abstract doesn't seem to mention this, which it should. Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == Line 57 has weird spacing: '...e Len optio...' == Line 88 has weird spacing: '...e Len optio...' -- No information found for rfcdraft-ietf-dhc-options-opt127-02.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 (January 1998) is 9569 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) No issues found here. Summary: 9 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 3 warnings (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group R. Droms 3 INTERNET DRAFT Bucknell University 4 Obsoletes: draft-ietf-dhc-options-opt127-02.txt July 1997 5 Expires January 1998 7 An Extension to the DHCP Option Codes 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 The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) provides a framework 31 for passing configuration information to hosts on a TCP/IP network. 32 This document defines a new option to extend the available option 33 codes. 35 1. Introduction 37 The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) [1] provides a 38 framework for passing configuration information to hosts on a TCP/IP 39 network. Configuration parameters and other control information are 40 carried in tagged data items that are stored in the 'options' field 41 of the DHCP message. The data items themselves are also called 42 "options." 44 Each option is assigned a one-octet option code. Options 128-254 are 45 reserved for local use and at this time over half of the available 46 options in the range 0-127 and option 255 have been assigned. This 47 document defines a new option to extend the available option codes 48 and new option to request the parameters represented by those new 49 option codes. 51 2. Definition of option 127 53 Option code 127 indicates that the DHCP option has a two-octet 54 extended option code. The format of these options is: 56 Extended 57 Code Len option code Data... 58 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 59 | 127 | XXX | oh | ol | d1 | d2 | ... 60 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 62 Other than the two-octet extended option code, these options are 63 encoded and carried in DHCP messages identically to the options 64 defined in RFC 1533 [2]. The high-order and low-order octets of the 65 extended option code are stored in 'oh' and 'ol', respectively. The 66 number of octets given in the 'len' field includes the two-octet 67 extended option code. 69 The two-octet extended option codes will be assigned through the 70 mechanisms defined for the assignment of new options [2] after the 71 current one-octet option codes have been exhausted. 73 3. Definition of option 126 75 This option is used by a DHCP client to request values for specified 76 configuration paramaters that are identified by extended option codes 77 as defined above. The list of n requested parameters is specified as 78 2n octets, where each pair of octets is a valid extended option code. 80 The client MAY list the options in order of preference. The DHCP 81 server is not required to return the options in the requested order, 82 but MUST try to insert the requested options in the order requested 83 by the client. 85 The code for this option is 126. Its minimum length is 2. 87 Extended 88 Code Len option codes 89 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 90 | 126 | XXX | c1h | c1l | c2h | c2l | ... 91 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+---- 93 4. References 95 [1] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 2131, 96 Bucknell University, March 1997. 98 [2] Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor 99 Extensions", RFC 2132, Lachman Associates, March 1997. 101 5. Security Considerations 103 DHCP currently provides no authentication or security mechanisms. 104 Potential exposures to attack are discussed in section 7 of the DHCP 105 protocol specification [1]. 107 6. Author's Address 109 Ralph Droms 110 Computer Science Department 111 323 Dana Engineering 112 Bucknell University 113 Lewisburg, PA 17837 115 Phone: (717) 524-1145 116 EMail: droms@bucknell.edu