idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-dhc-vendor-02.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 380. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 357. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 364. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 370. ** Found boilerplate matching RFC 3978, Section 5.4, paragraph 1 (on line 386), which is fine, but *also* found old RFC 2026, Section 10.4C, paragraph 1 text on line 36. ** 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 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 (May 17, 2004) is 7281 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) -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. '3' -- Obsolete informational reference (is this intentional?): RFC 3315 (ref. '6') (Obsoleted by RFC 8415) Summary: 6 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 9 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 DHC Working Group J. Littlefield 3 Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. 4 Expires: November 17, 2004 May 17, 2004 6 Vendor-Identifying Vendor Options for DHCPv4 7 draft-ietf-dhc-vendor-02.txt 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 18 other groups may also distribute working documents as 19 Internet-Drafts. 21 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 22 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 23 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 24 material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." 26 The list of current Internet-Drafts can be accessed at 27 http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1id-abstracts.txt. 29 The list of Internet-Draft Shadow Directories can be accessed at 30 http://www.ietf.org/shadow.html. 32 This Internet-Draft will expire on November 17, 2004. 34 Copyright Notice 36 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. 38 Abstract 40 The DHCP options for Vendor Class and Vendor-Specific Information can 41 be limiting or ambiguous when a DHCP client represents multiple 42 vendors. This document defines two new options, modeled on the IPv6 43 options for vendor class and vendor-specific information, which 44 contain Enterprise Numbers to remove ambiguity. 46 Conventions used in this document 48 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 49 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 50 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1]. 52 Table of Contents 54 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 2. Supporting Multiple Vendor Instances . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 56 3. Vendor-Identifying Vendor Class Option . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 57 4. Vendor-Identifying Vendor-Specific Information Option . . . . 5 58 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 59 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 60 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 61 7.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 62 7.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 63 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 64 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 9 66 1. Introduction 68 The DHCP protocol for IPv4, RFC 2131 [2], defines options that allow 69 a client to indicate its vendor type (option 60), and to allow the 70 DHCP client and server to exchange vendor-specific information 71 (option 43) [5]. While there is no prohibition against passing 72 multiple copies of these options in a single packet, doing so would 73 introduce ambiguity of interpretation, particularly if conveying 74 vendor-specific information for multiple vendors. The vendor 75 identified by option 60 defines the interpretation of option 43, 76 which itself carries no vendor identifier. Furthermore, the 77 concatenation of multiple instances of the same option, required by 78 RFC 2131 and specified by RFC 3396 [4], means that multiple copies of 79 options 60 or 43 would not remain independent. 81 There are circumstances where an implementation may need to support 82 multiple, independently defined forms of vendor-specific information. 83 For example, implementations that must conform to an industry- 84 standard use of DHCPv4, to allow interoperability in a particular 85 technology space, may be required to support the vendor-specific 86 options of that industry group. But the same implementation may also 87 require support for vendor-specific options defined by the 88 manufacturer. In particular, this is an issue for vendors of devices 89 supporting CableLabs [9] standards, such as DOCSIS, CableHome, and 90 PacketCable, since those standards define an industry-specific use 91 for options 60 and 43. 93 This document defines two new options, modeled on the IPv6 options 94 for vendor class and vendor-specific information defined in RFC 3315 95 [6], which contain Enterprise Numbers to remove ambiguity about the 96 interpretation of their contents. If desired, these new options can 97 be used in addition to the current vendor class and vendor 98 information options, whose definition is unaffected by this document. 100 2. Supporting Multiple Vendor Instances 102 The options defined in this document may each contain data 103 corresponding to more than one vendor. The data portion of each 104 option defined here contains an enterprise number, followed by an 105 internal data length, followed by vendor-specific data. This 106 sequence may be repeated multiple times within each option. Because 107 of the possibility that the aggregate of the vendor-specific data for 108 either option will exceed 255 octets, these options are hereby 109 declared to be "concatenation-requiring", as defined by RFC 3396 [4]. 110 As such, the aggregate of all instances of vendor-specific data is to 111 be considered one long option, for each of the two options defined 112 here. These long options can be divided into smaller options for 113 packet encoding in conformance with RFC 3396, on whatever octet 114 boundaries are convenient to the implementation. Dividing on the 115 boundaries between vendor instances is not required, but may be 116 convenient for encoding or packet tracing. 118 3. Vendor-Identifying Vendor Class Option 120 A DHCP client may use this option to unambiguously identify the 121 vendor that manufactured the hardware on which the client is running, 122 the software in use, or an industry consortium to which the vendor 123 belongs. The information contained in the per-vendor data area of 124 this option is contained in one or more opaque fields that may 125 identify details of the hardware configuration. 127 This option may be used wherever Vendor Class Identifier (option 60) 128 may be used, as described in RFC 2131 [2], except for DHCPNAK 129 messages, where other options are not permitted. It is most 130 meaningful in messages from DHCP client to DHCP server (DHCPDISCOVER, 131 DHCPREQUEST, DHCPINFORM). 133 The format of the V-I Vendor Class option is: 135 1 1 1 1 1 1 136 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 137 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 138 | option-code | option-len | 139 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 140 | enterprise-number1 | 141 | | 142 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 143 | data-len1 | | 144 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 145 / vendor-class-data1 / 146 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ---- 147 | enterprise-number2 | ^ 148 | | | 149 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 150 | data-len2 | | optional 151 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | | 152 / vendor-class-data2 / | 153 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 154 ~ ... ~ V 155 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ---- 157 option-code OPTION_V-I_VENDOR_CLASS (to be assigned by IANA) 158 option-len 5 + length of vendor class data field 160 enterprise-numberN The vendor's 32-bit Enterprise Number as 161 registered with IANA [3] 163 data-lenN Length of vendor-class-data field 165 vendor-class-dataN Details of the hardware configuration of the 166 host on which the client is running, or of 167 industry consortium compliance 169 This option contains information corresponding to one or more 170 Enterprise Numbers. Multiple instances of this option may be 171 present, and MUST be concatenated in accordance with RFC 3396 [4]. 172 An Enterprise Number SHOULD only occur once among all instances of 173 this option. Behavior is undefined if an Enterprise Number occurs 174 multiple times. The information for each Enterprise Number is 175 treated independently, regardless or whether it occurs in an option 176 with other Enterprise Numbers, or in a separate option. 178 The vendor-class-data is composed of a series of separate items, each 179 of which describes some characteristic of the client's hardware 180 configuration or capabilities. Examples of vendor-class-data 181 instances might include the version of the operating system the 182 client is running or the amount of memory installed on the client. 184 Each instance of the vendor-class-data is formatted as follows: 186 1 1 1 1 1 1 187 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 188 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 189 | data-len | | 190 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ opaque-data | 191 / / 192 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 194 The data-len is one octet long and specifies the length of the opaque 195 vendor class data in network byte order. 197 4. Vendor-Identifying Vendor-Specific Information Option 199 DHCP clients and servers may use this option to exchange vendor- 200 specific information. Either party may send this option, as needed. 201 While a typical case might be for a client to send the 202 Vendor-Identifying Vendor Class option, to elicit a useful 203 Vendor-Identifying Vendor-Specific Information Option, there is no 204 requirement for such a flow. 206 This option may be used in any packets where "other" options are 207 allowed by RFC2131 [2], specifically DHCPDISCOVER, DHCPOFFER, 208 DHCPREQUEST, DHCPACK and DHCPINFORM. 210 The format of the V-I Vendor-specific Information option is: 212 1 1 1 1 1 1 213 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 214 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 215 | option-code | option-len | 216 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 217 | enterprise-number1 | 218 | | 219 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 220 | data-len1 | | 221 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ option-data1 | 222 / / 223 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ---- 224 | enterprise-number2 | ^ 225 | | | 226 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 227 | data-len2 | | optional 228 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ option-data2 | | 229 / / | 230 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 231 ~ ... ~ V 232 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ---- 234 option-code OPTION_V-I_VENDOR_OPTS (to be assigned by IANA) 236 option-len 5 + length of option-data field 238 enterprise-numberN The vendor's registered 32-bit Enterprise Number 239 as registered with IANA [3] 241 data-lenN Length of option-data field 243 option-dataN Vendor-specific options, described below. 245 The definition of the information carried in this option is vendor 246 specific. The vendor is indicated in the enterprise-number field. 247 This option contains information corresponding to one or more 248 Enterprise Numbers. Multiple instances of this option may be 249 present, and MUST be concatenated in accordance with RFC 3396 [4]. 250 An Enterprise Number SHOULD only occur once among all instances of 251 this option. Behavior is undefined if an Enterprise Number occurs 252 multiple times. The information for each Enterprise Number is 253 treated independently, regardless or whether it occurs in an option 254 with other Enterprise Numbers, or in a separate option. 256 Use of vendor-specific information allows enhanced operation, 257 utilizing additional features in a vendor's DHCP implementation. 258 Servers not equipped to interpret the vendor-specific information 259 sent by a client MUST ignore it. Clients that do not receive desired 260 vendor-specific information SHOULD make an attempt to operate without 261 it. 263 The encapsulated vendor-specific option-data field MUST be encoded as 264 a sequence of code/length/value fields of identical format to the 265 DHCP options field. The option codes are defined by the vendor 266 identified in the enterprise-number field and are not managed by 267 IANA. Option codes 0 and 255 have no pre-defined interpretation or 268 format. Each of the encapsulated options is formatted as follows: 270 1 1 1 1 1 1 271 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 272 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 273 | subopt-code | subopt-len | 274 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 275 / sub-option-data / 276 / / 277 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 279 subopt-code The code for the encapsulated option 281 subopt-len An unsigned integer giving the length of the 282 option-data field in this encapsulated option in 283 octets 285 sub-option-data Data area for the encapsulated option 287 5. IANA Considerations 289 The values for the OPTION_V-I_VENDOR_CLASS and OPTION_V-I_VENDOR_OPTS 290 option codes must be assigned from the numbering space defined for 291 public DHCP Options in RFC 2939 [7]. 293 6. Security Considerations 295 This document in and by itself provides no security, nor does it 296 impact existing security. DHCP provides an authentication and 297 message integrity mechanism, as described in RFC 3118 [8], which may 298 be used if authenticity is required for data carried by the options 299 defined in this document. 301 7. References 303 7.1 Normative References 305 [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement 306 Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 308 [2] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 2131, 309 March 1997. 311 [3] IANA, "Private Enterprise Numbers", 312 . 314 [4] Lemon, T. and S. Chesire, "Encoding Long Options in the Dynamic 315 Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4)", RFC 3396, November 2002. 317 7.2 Informative References 319 [5] Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor 320 Extensions", RFC 2132, March 1997. 322 [6] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C. and M. 323 Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", 324 RFC 3315, July 2003. 326 [7] Droms, R., "Procedures and IANA Guidelines for Definition of New 327 DHCP Options and Message Types", BCP 43, RFC 2939, September 328 2000. 330 [8] Droms, R. and W. Arbaugh, "Authentication for DHCP Message", RFC 331 3118, June 2001. 333 URIs 335 [9] 337 Author's Address 339 Josh Littlefield 340 Cisco Systems, Inc. 341 1414 Massachusetts Avenue 342 Boxborough, MA 01719 343 USA 345 Phone: +1 978-936-1379 346 EMail: joshl@cisco.com 348 Intellectual Property Statement 350 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 351 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 352 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 353 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 354 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 355 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 356 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 357 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 359 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 360 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 361 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 362 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 363 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 364 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 366 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 367 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 368 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 369 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 370 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 372 Disclaimer of Validity 374 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 375 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 376 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 377 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 378 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 379 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 380 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 382 Copyright Statement 384 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject 385 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 386 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 388 Acknowledgment 390 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 391 Internet Society.