idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-dhc-reclassify-options-01.txt: Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** It looks like you're using RFC 3978 boilerplate. You should update this to the boilerplate described in the IETF Trust License Policy document (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info), which is required now. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3667, Section 5.1 on line 14. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 299. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 283. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 289. ** Found boilerplate matching RFC 3978, Section 5.4, paragraph 1 (on line 305), which is fine, but *also* found old RFC 2026, Section 10.4C, paragraph 1 text on line 35. ** The document seems to lack an RFC 3978 Section 5.1 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.4 Copyright Line, instead of the newer IETF Trust Copyright according to RFC 4748. ** This document has an original RFC 3978 Section 5.5 Disclaimer, instead of the newer disclaimer which includes the IETF Trust according to RFC 4748. ** The document seems to lack an RFC 3979 Section 5, para. 1 IPR Disclosure Acknowledgement -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? ** The document uses RFC 3667 boilerplate or RFC 3978-like boilerplate instead of verbatim RFC 3978 boilerplate. After 6 May 2005, submission of drafts without verbatim RFC 3978 boilerplate is not accepted. The following non-3978 patterns matched text found in the document. That text should be removed or replaced: By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, or will be disclosed, and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with RFC 3668. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- No issues found here. 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 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 (April 26, 2004) is 7295 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: 7 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 6 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 Network Working Group B. Volz 3 Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. 4 Expires: October 25, 2004 April 26, 2004 6 Reclassifying DHCPv4 Options 7 draft-ietf-dhc-reclassify-options-01 9 Status of this Memo 11 By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable 12 patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, 13 and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with 14 RFC 3668. 16 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 17 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other 18 groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. 20 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 21 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 22 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 23 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 25 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at http:// 26 www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 28 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 29 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 31 This Internet-Draft will expire on October 25, 2004. 33 Copyright Notice 35 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. 37 Abstract 39 This document revises RFC 2132 to reclassify DHCPv4 option codes 128 40 to 223 (decimal) as publicly defined options to be managed by IANA in 41 accordance with RFC 2939. This document directs IANA to make these 42 option codes available for assignment as publicly defined DHCP 43 options for future options. 45 Table of Contents 47 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 48 2. Requirements notation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 49 3. Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 50 3.1 Publicly Defined Options Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 51 3.2 Site-Specific Options Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 52 4. Reclassifying Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 53 5. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 54 6. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 55 7. Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 56 8. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 57 8.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 58 8.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 59 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 60 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 8 62 1. Introduction 64 The DHCPv4 [RFC2131] publicly defined options range, options 1-127, 65 is nearly used up. Efforts such as [RFC3679] help extend the life of 66 this space, but ultimately the space is expected to be exhausted. 68 This document reclassifies much of the site-specific option range, 69 which has not been widely used for its original intended purpose, to 70 extend the publicly defined options space. 72 2. Requirements notation 74 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 75 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 76 document are to be interpreted as described in [RFC2119]. 78 3. Background 80 The DHCP option space (0-255) is divided into two ranges [RFC2132]: 82 1. 1-127 are publicly defined options, now allocated in accordance 83 with [RFC2939]. 85 2. 128-254 are site-specific options. 87 Options 0 (pad) and 255 (end) are special and defined in [RFC2131]. 89 3.1 Publicly Defined Options Range 91 The publicly defined options space (1-127) is nearly exhausted. 92 Recent work ([RFC3679]) will buy more time as several allocated but 93 never used option codes are reclaimed. And, a review could be done 94 from time to time to determine if there are other option codes that 95 can be reclaimed. 97 A longer term solution to the eventual exhaustion of the publicly 98 defined options space is desired. The DHC WG evaluated several 99 solutions: 101 1. Using options 126 and 127 to carry 16-bit options as originally 102 proposed by Ralph Droms in late 1996. However, this significantly 103 penalizes the first option assigned to this new space, as it 104 requires implementing the 16-bit option support. Because of this, 105 options 126 and 127 have been reclaimed [RFC3679]. 107 2. Using a new magic cookie and 16-bit option code format. However, 108 this proposal: 110 * penalizes the first option assigned to this new space, as it 111 requires significant changes to clients, servers, and relay 112 agents, 113 * could adversely impact existing clients, servers, and relay 114 agents that fail to properly check the magic cookie value, 115 * requires support of both message formats for the foreseeable 116 future, and 117 * requires clients to send multiple DHCPDISCOVER messages - one 118 for each magic cookie. 120 3. Reclassifying a portion of the site-specific option codes as 121 publicly defined. The impact is minimal as only those sites 122 presently using options in the reclassified range need to 123 renumber their options. 125 3.2 Site-Specific Options Range 127 The site-specific option range is rather large (127 options in all) 128 and has been little used. The original intent of the site-specific 129 option range was to support local (to a site) configuration options, 130 and it is difficult to believe a site would need 127 options for this 131 purpose. Further, many DHCP client implementations do not provide a 132 well documented means of requesting site-specific options from a 133 server or allowing applications to extract the returned option 134 values. 136 Some vendors have made use of site-specific option codes that violate 137 the intent of the site-specific options, as the options are used to 138 configure features of their products and thus are specific to many 139 sites. This usage can potentially cause problems if a site has been 140 using the same site-specific option codes for other purposes and then 141 deploys products from one of the vendors or if two vendors pick the 142 same site-specific options. 144 4. Reclassifying Options 146 The site-specific option codes 128 to 223 are hereby reclassified as 147 publicly defined options. This leaves 31 site-specific options, 224 148 to 254. 150 To allow vendors that have made use of site-specific options within 151 the reclassified range to publicly document their option usage and 152 request an official assignment of the option number to that usage, 153 the following procedure will be used to reclassify these options: 155 1. The reclassified options (128 to 223) will be placed in the 156 "Unavailable" state by IANA. These options are not yet available 157 for assignment to publicly defined options. 159 2. Vendors that currently use one or more of the reclassified 160 options have until 6 months after this RFC's publication date to 161 notify the DHC WG and IANA that they are using particular options 162 numbers and agree to document that usage in an RFC. IANA will 163 move these options from the "Unavailable" to 164 "Tentatively-Assigned" state. 166 Vendors have 18 months from this RFC's publication date to start 167 the documentation process by submitting an Internet-Draft. 169 NOTE: If multiple vendors of an option number come forward and 170 can demonstrate their usage is in reasonably wide use, none of 171 the vendors will be allowed to keep the current option number and 172 they MUST go through the normal process of getting a publicly 173 assigned option [RFC2939]. 175 3. Any options still classified as "Unavailable" 6 months after the 176 RFC publication date will be moved to the "Unassigned" state by 177 IANA. These options may then be assigned to any new publicly 178 defined options in accordance with [RFC2939]. 180 4. For those options in the "Tentatively-Assigned" state, vendors 181 have until 18 months from this RFC's publication date to submit 182 an Internet-Draft documenting the option. The documented usage 183 MUST be consistent with the existing usage. When the option usage 184 is published as an RFC, IANA will move the option to the 185 "Assigned" state. 187 If no Internet-Draft is published within the 18 months or should 188 one of these Internet-Drafts expire after the 18 months, IANA 189 will move the option to the "Unassigned" state and the option may 190 then be assigned to any new publicly defined options in 191 accordance with [RFC2939]. 193 Sites that are presently using site-specific option codes within the 194 reclassified range SHOULD take steps to renumber these options to 195 values within the remaining range. If a site needs more than 31 196 site-specific options, the site must switch to using suboptions as 197 has been done for other options, such as the Relay Agent Information 198 Option [RFC3046]. 200 5. Security Considerations 202 This document in and by itself provides no security, nor does it 203 impact existing DCHP security as described in [RFC2131]. 205 6. IANA Considerations 207 IANA is requested to: 209 1. Expand the publicly defined DHCPv4 options space from 1-127 to 210 1-223. The new options (128-223) are to be listed as 211 "Unavailable" and MUST NOT be assigned to any publicly defined 212 options. 213 2. Receive notices from vendors that have been using one or more of 214 the options in the 128-223 range that they are using the option 215 and are willing to document that usage. IANA will list these 216 options as "Tentatively-Assigned". 217 3. 6 months from this RFC's publication date, change the listing of 218 any options listed as "Unavailable" to "Available". These options 219 may now be assigned in accordance with [RFC2939]. 220 4. 18 months from this RFC's publication date and periodically 221 thereafter as long as there is an option listed as 222 "Tentatively-Assigned", change the listing of any options listed 223 as "Tentatively-Assigned" to "Unavailable" if no un-expired 224 Internet-Draft exists documenting the usage. 226 7. Acknowledgements 228 Many thanks to Ralph Droms and Ted Lemon for their valuable input and 229 earlier work on the various alternatives. 231 8. References 233 8.1 Normative References 235 [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate 236 Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 238 [RFC2131] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 239 2131, March 1997. 241 [RFC2132] Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor 242 Extensions", RFC 2132, March 1997. 244 [RFC2939] Droms, R., "Procedures and IANA Guidelines for Definition 245 of New DHCP Options and Message Types", BCP 43, RFC 2939, 246 September 2000. 248 8.2 Informative References 250 [RFC3046] Patrick, M., "DHCP Relay Agent Information Option", RFC 251 3046, January 2001. 253 [RFC3679] Droms, R., "Unused Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol 254 (DHCP) Option Codes", RFC 3679, January 2004. 256 Author's Address 258 Bernard Volz 259 Cisco Systems, Inc. 260 1414 Massachusetts Ave. 261 Boxborough, MA 01719 262 USA 264 Phone: +1 978 936 0382 265 EMail: volz@cisco.com 267 Intellectual Property Statement 269 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 270 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 271 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 272 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 273 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 274 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 275 on the IETF's procedures with respect to rights in IETF Documents can 276 be found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 278 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 279 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 280 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 281 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 282 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 283 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 285 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 286 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 287 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 288 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 289 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 291 Disclaimer of Validity 293 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 294 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 295 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 296 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 297 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 298 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 299 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 301 Copyright Statement 303 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject 304 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 305 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 307 Acknowledgment 309 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 310 Internet Society.