idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-dhc-vendor-03.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 13. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3978, Section 5.5 on line 383. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 1 on line 360. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 2 on line 367. -- Found old boilerplate from RFC 3979, Section 5, paragraph 3 on line 373. ** Found boilerplate matching RFC 3978, Section 5.4, paragraph 1 (on line 389), 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 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 == The page length should not exceed 58 lines per page, but there was 10 longer pages, the longest (page 8) being 70 lines == It seems as if not all pages are separated by form feeds - found 0 form feeds but 10 pages 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 (June 21, 2004) is 7249 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 (~~), 4 warnings (==), 9 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 DHC Working Group J. Littlefield 2 Internet-Draft Cisco Systems, Inc. 3 Expires: December 21, 2004 June 21, 2004 5 Vendor-Identifying Vendor Options for DHCPv4 6 draft-ietf-dhc-vendor-03.txt 8 Status of this Memo 10 By submitting this Internet-Draft, I certify that any applicable 11 patent or other IPR claims of which I am aware have been disclosed, 12 and any of which I become aware will be disclosed, in accordance with 13 RFC 3668. 15 Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering 16 Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that 17 other groups may also distribute working documents as 18 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 26 http://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 December 21, 2004. 33 Copyright Notice 35 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). All Rights Reserved. 37 Abstract 39 The DHCP options for Vendor Class and Vendor-Specific Information can 40 be limiting or ambiguous when a DHCP client represents multiple 41 vendors. This document defines two new options, modeled on the IPv6 42 options for vendor class and vendor-specific information, which 43 contain Enterprise Numbers to remove ambiguity. 45 Conventions used in this document 47 The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", 48 "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this 49 document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [1]. 51 Table of Contents 53 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 54 2. Supporting Multiple Vendor Instances . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 55 3. Vendor-Identifying Vendor Class Option . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 56 4. Vendor-Identifying Vendor-Specific Information Option . . . . 5 57 5. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 58 6. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 59 7. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 60 7.1 Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 61 7.2 Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 62 Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 63 Intellectual Property and Copyright Statements . . . . . . . . 10 65 1. Introduction 67 The DHCP protocol for IPv4, RFC 2131 [2], defines options that allow 68 a client to indicate its vendor type (option 60), and to allow the 69 DHCP client and server to exchange vendor-specific information 70 (option 43) [5]. While there is no prohibition against passing 71 multiple copies of these options in a single packet, doing so would 72 introduce ambiguity of interpretation, particularly if conveying 73 vendor-specific information for multiple vendors. The vendor 74 identified by option 60 defines the interpretation of option 43, 75 which itself carries no vendor identifier. Furthermore, the 76 concatenation of multiple instances of the same option, required by 77 RFC 2131 and specified by RFC 3396 [4], means that multiple copies of 78 options 60 or 43 would not remain independent. 80 There are circumstances where an implementation may need to support 81 multiple, independently defined forms of vendor-specific information. 82 For example, implementations that must conform to an industry- 83 standard use of DHCPv4, to allow interoperability in a particular 84 technology space, may be required to support the vendor-specific 85 options of that industry group. But the same implementation may also 86 require support for vendor-specific options defined by the 87 manufacturer. In particular, this is an issue for vendors of devices 88 supporting CableLabs [9] standards, such as DOCSIS, CableHome, and 89 PacketCable, since those standards define an industry-specific use 90 for options 60 and 43. 92 This document defines two new options, modeled on the IPv6 options 93 for vendor class and vendor-specific information defined in RFC 3315 94 [6], which contain IANA-assigned Enterprise Numbers [3] to remove 95 ambiguity about the interpretation of their contents. If desired, 96 these new options can be used in addition to the current vendor class 97 and vendor information options, whose definition is unaffected by 98 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 (assigned by IANA 105 [3]), followed by an internal data length, followed by 106 vendor-specific data. This sequence may be repeated multiple times 107 within each option. Because of the possibility that the aggregate of 108 the vendor-specific data for either option will exceed 255 octets, 109 these options are hereby declared to be "concatenation-requiring", as 110 defined by RFC 3396 [4]. As such, the aggregate of all instances of 111 vendor-specific data is to be considered one long option, for each of 112 the two options defined here. These long options can be divided into 113 smaller options for packet encoding in conformance with RFC 3396, on 114 whatever octet boundaries are convenient to the implementation. 115 Dividing on the boundaries between vendor instances is not required, 116 but may be 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 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ---- 156 option-code OPTION_V-I_VENDOR_CLASS (to be assigned by IANA) 158 option-len total length of all following option data in 159 octets 161 enterprise-numberN The vendor's 32-bit Enterprise Number as 162 registered with IANA [3] 164 data-lenN Length of vendor-class-data field 166 vendor-class-dataN Details of the hardware configuration of the 167 host on which the client is running, or of 168 industry consortium compliance 170 This option contains information corresponding to one or more 171 Enterprise Numbers. Multiple instances of this option may be 172 present, and MUST be concatenated in accordance with RFC 3396 [4]. 173 An Enterprise Number SHOULD only occur once among all instances of 174 this option. Behavior is undefined if an Enterprise Number occurs 175 multiple times. The information for each Enterprise Number is 176 treated independently, regardless or whether it occurs in an option 177 with other Enterprise Numbers, or in a separate option. 179 The vendor-class-data is composed of a series of separate items, each 180 of which describes some characteristic of the client's hardware 181 configuration or capabilities. Examples of vendor-class-data 182 instances might include the version of the operating system the 183 client is running or the amount of memory installed on the client. 185 Each instance of the vendor-class-data is formatted as follows: 187 1 1 1 1 1 1 188 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 189 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 190 | data-len | | 191 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ opaque-data | 192 / / 193 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 195 The data-len is one octet long and specifies the length of the opaque 196 vendor class data in network byte order. 198 4. Vendor-Identifying Vendor-Specific Information Option 200 DHCP clients and servers may use this option to exchange vendor- 201 specific information. Either party may send this option, as needed. 202 While a typical case might be for a client to send the 203 Vendor-Identifying Vendor Class option, to elicit a useful 204 Vendor-Identifying Vendor-Specific Information Option, there is no 205 requirement for such a flow. 207 This option may be used in any packets where "other" options are 208 allowed by RFC2131 [2], specifically DHCPDISCOVER, DHCPOFFER, 209 DHCPREQUEST, DHCPACK and DHCPINFORM. 211 The format of the V-I Vendor-specific Information option is: 213 1 1 1 1 1 1 214 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 215 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 216 | option-code | option-len | 217 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 218 | enterprise-number1 | 219 | | 220 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 221 | data-len1 | | 222 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ option-data1 | 223 / / 224 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ---- 225 | enterprise-number2 | ^ 226 | | | 227 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 228 | data-len2 | | optional 229 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ option-data2 | | 230 / / | 231 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 232 ~ ... ~ V 233 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ---- 235 option-code OPTION_V-I_VENDOR_OPTS (to be assigned by IANA) 237 option-len total length of all following option data in 238 octets 240 enterprise-numberN The vendor's registered 32-bit Enterprise Number 241 as registered with IANA [3] 243 data-lenN Length of option-data field 245 option-dataN Vendor-specific options, described below. 247 The definition of the information carried in this option is vendor 248 specific. The vendor is indicated in the enterprise-number field. 249 This option contains information corresponding to one or more 250 Enterprise Numbers. Multiple instances of this option may be 251 present, and MUST be concatenated in accordance with RFC 3396 [4]. 253 An Enterprise Number SHOULD only occur once among all instances of 254 this option. Behavior is undefined if an Enterprise Number occurs 255 multiple times. The information for each Enterprise Number is 256 treated independently, regardless or whether it occurs in an option 257 with other Enterprise Numbers, or in a separate option. 259 Use of vendor-specific information allows enhanced operation, 260 utilizing additional features in a vendor's DHCP implementation. 261 Servers not equipped to interpret the vendor-specific information 262 sent by a client MUST ignore it. Clients that do not receive desired 263 vendor-specific information SHOULD make an attempt to operate without 264 it. 266 The encapsulated vendor-specific option-data field MUST be encoded as 267 a sequence of code/length/value fields of identical format to the 268 DHCP options field. The option codes are defined by the vendor 269 identified in the enterprise-number field and are not managed by 270 IANA. Option codes 0 and 255 have no pre-defined interpretation or 271 format. Each of the encapsulated options is formatted as follows: 273 1 1 1 1 1 1 274 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 275 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 276 | subopt-code | subopt-len | 277 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 278 / sub-option-data / 279 / / 280 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ 282 subopt-code The code for the encapsulated option 284 subopt-len An unsigned integer giving the length of the 285 option-data field in this encapsulated option in 286 octets 288 sub-option-data Data area for the encapsulated option 290 5. IANA Considerations 292 The values for the OPTION_V-I_VENDOR_CLASS and OPTION_V-I_VENDOR_OPTS 293 option codes must be assigned from the numbering space defined for 294 public DHCP Options in RFC 2939 [7]. 296 6. Security Considerations 298 This document in and by itself provides no security, nor does it 299 impact existing security. DHCP provides an authentication and 300 message integrity mechanism, as described in RFC 3118 [8], which may 301 be used if authenticity is required for data carried by the options 302 defined in this document. 304 7. References 306 7.1 Normative References 308 [1] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement 309 Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997. 311 [2] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC 2131, 312 March 1997. 314 [3] IANA, "Private Enterprise Numbers", 315 . 317 [4] Lemon, T. and S. Chesire, "Encoding Long Options in the Dynamic 318 Host Configuration Protocol (DHCPv4)", RFC 3396, November 2002. 320 7.2 Informative References 322 [5] Alexander, S. and R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor 323 Extensions", RFC 2132, March 1997. 325 [6] Droms, R., Bound, J., Volz, B., Lemon, T., Perkins, C. and M. 326 Carney, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6)", 327 RFC 3315, July 2003. 329 [7] Droms, R., "Procedures and IANA Guidelines for Definition of New 330 DHCP Options and Message Types", BCP 43, RFC 2939, September 331 2000. 333 [8] Droms, R. and W. Arbaugh, "Authentication for DHCP Message", RFC 334 3118, June 2001. 336 URIs 338 [9] 340 Author's Address 342 Josh Littlefield 343 Cisco Systems, Inc. 344 1414 Massachusetts Avenue 345 Boxborough, MA 01719 346 USA 348 Phone: +1 978-936-1379 349 EMail: joshl@cisco.com 351 Intellectual Property Statement 353 The IETF takes no position regarding the validity or scope of any 354 Intellectual Property Rights or other rights that might be claimed to 355 pertain to the implementation or use of the technology described in 356 this document or the extent to which any license under such rights 357 might or might not be available; nor does it represent that it has 358 made any independent effort to identify any such rights. Information 359 on the procedures with respect to rights in RFC documents can be 360 found in BCP 78 and BCP 79. 362 Copies of IPR disclosures made to the IETF Secretariat and any 363 assurances of licenses to be made available, or the result of an 364 attempt made to obtain a general license or permission for the use of 365 such proprietary rights by implementers or users of this 366 specification can be obtained from the IETF on-line IPR repository at 367 http://www.ietf.org/ipr. 369 The IETF invites any interested party to bring to its attention any 370 copyrights, patents or patent applications, or other proprietary 371 rights that may cover technology that may be required to implement 372 this standard. Please address the information to the IETF at 373 ietf-ipr@ietf.org. 375 Disclaimer of Validity 377 This document and the information contained herein are provided on an 378 "AS IS" basis and THE CONTRIBUTOR, THE ORGANIZATION HE/SHE REPRESENTS 379 OR IS SPONSORED BY (IF ANY), THE INTERNET SOCIETY AND THE INTERNET 380 ENGINEERING TASK FORCE DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 381 INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO ANY WARRANTY THAT THE USE OF THE 382 INFORMATION HEREIN WILL NOT INFRINGE ANY RIGHTS OR ANY IMPLIED 383 WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. 385 Copyright Statement 387 Copyright (C) The Internet Society (2004). This document is subject 388 to the rights, licenses and restrictions contained in BCP 78, and 389 except as set forth therein, the authors retain all their rights. 391 Acknowledgment 393 Funding for the RFC Editor function is currently provided by the 394 Internet Society.