idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-ip1394-dhcp-01.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 (2024-03-29) 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. ** There are 3 instances of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 1 character in excess of 72. ** 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 73: '... 'htype' (hardware address type) MUST be 24 [ARPPARAM]....' RFC 2119 keyword, line 75: '...' (hardware address length) MUST be 0....' RFC 2119 keyword, line 80: '...P client on 1394 SHOULD set a BROADCAS...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 84: '...entifier' option MUST be used in DHCP ...' Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- 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 1999) is 9205 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) == Outdated reference: A later version (-19) exists of draft-ietf-ip1394-ipv4-12 -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'EUI64' -- Possible downref: Non-RFC (?) normative reference: ref. 'ARPPARAM' Summary: 10 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 4 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Internet-Draft K. Fujisawa 2 Sony Corporation 3 Expires: July, 1999 January 1999 5 DHCP for IEEE 1394 7 Status of this memo 9 This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working 10 documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its 11 areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also 12 distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. 14 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six 15 months and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other 16 documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet- 17 Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as 18 ``work in progress.'' 20 To view the entire list of current Internet-Drafts, please check 21 the "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet-Drafts 22 Shadow Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), ftp.nordu.net 23 (Northern Europe), ftp.nis.garr.it (Southern Europe), munnari.oz.au 24 (Pacific Rim), ftp.ietf.org (US East Coast), or ftp.isi.edu 25 (US West Coast). 27 Abstract 29 IEEE Std 1394-1995 is a standard for a High Performance Serial Bus. 30 Since 1394 uses different link-layer addressing method than 31 conventional IEEE802/Ethernet, the usage of some fields must be 32 clarified to achieve interoperability. 33 This memo describes the 1394 specific usage of some fields of DHCP 34 messages. 36 1. Introduction 38 IEEE Std 1394-1995 is a standard for a High Performance Serial Bus. 39 IETF IP1394 Working Group specified the method to carry IPv4 40 datagrams and ARP packets over an IEEE1394 network [IP1394]. 42 The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol (DHCP) [RFC2131] provides a 43 framework for passing configuration information to hosts on a TCP/IP 44 network. 46 Since 1394 uses different link-layer addressing method than 47 conventional IEEE802/Ethernet, the usage of some fields must be 48 clarified to achieve interoperability. 49 This memo describes the 1394 specific usage of some fields of DHCP. 50 See [RFC2131] for the mechanism of DHCP and the explanations of each 51 fields. 53 This document is a product of the IP1394 working group within the 54 Internet Engineering Task Force. Comments are solicited and should 55 be addressed to the working group's mailing list at 56 ip1394@mailbag.intel.com and/or the author. 58 2. Issues related to 1394 link address 60 By the conventional link-layer protocols, such as an Ethernet, the 61 'chaddr' (client hardware address) field may be used to return a 62 reply message from a DHCP server (or relay-agent) to a client. Since 63 1394 link address (node_ID) is transient and will not be consistent 64 across the 1394 bridge, we have chosen not to put it in the 'chaddr' 65 field. A DHCP client should request the server to send a broadcast 66 reply by setting the BROADCAST flag when ARP is not possible yet. 68 3. 1394 specific usage of DHCP message fields 70 Following rules should be used when a DHCP client is connected to 71 an IEEE1394 network. 73 'htype' (hardware address type) MUST be 24 [ARPPARAM]. 75 'hlen' (hardware address length) MUST be 0. 77 The 'chaddr' (client hardware address) field is reserved. The 78 recipient shall not check the value of this field. 80 A DHCP client on 1394 SHOULD set a BROADCAST flag in DHCPDISCOVER and 81 DHCPREQUEST messages to request the server (or the relay agent) to 82 send a broadcast reply if its 'ciaddr' (client IP address) is zero. 84 'client identifier' option MUST be used in DHCP messages from the 85 client to the server due to the lack of the 'chaddr'. 'client 86 identifier' option may consist of any data. When an EUI-64 (node 87 unique ID) [EUI64] is used as a 'client identifier', the type value 88 for the EUI-64 is 27 [ARPPARAM], and the format is illustrated as 89 follows. 91 Code Len Type Client-Identifier 92 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ 93 | 61 | 9 | 27 | EUI-64 (node unique ID) | 94 +-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+-----+ 96 Note that the use of other 'client identifier' type, such as a fully 97 qualified domain name (FQDN), is not precluded by this memo. 98 For more details, see "9.14. Client-identifier" in [RFC2132]. 100 Security Considerations 102 Security issues are not discussed in this document. 104 References 106 [IP1394] P. Johansson, "IPv4 over IEEE 1394", 107 draft-ietf-ip1394-ipv4-12.txt, work in progress. 109 [RFC2131] R. Droms, "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC2131, 110 March 1997. 112 [RFC2132] S. Alexander, R. Droms, "DHCP Options and BOOTP Vendor 113 Extensions", RFC2132, March 1997. 115 [EUI64] http://standards.ieee.org/regauth/oui/tutorials/EUI64.html 117 [ARPPARAM] http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/iana/assignments/arp-parameters 119 Author's address 121 Kenji Fujisawa 122 Sony Corporation 123 IT Laboratories, Computer Systems Laboratory 124 6-7-35, Kitashinagawa, 125 Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo, 141-0001 Japan 126 Phone: +81-3-5448-4602 127 E-mail: fujisawa@sm.sony.co.jp