[dhcwg] Re: Call for topics for dhc WG session at IETF-124 , reply by 9/16/25

--===============1009140630983626812==
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-=";
	micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"

--=-=-=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Will the DHC WG chairs be at IETF124 in person?
If not, then I suggest a virtual interim might be better.

Bernie Volz <[email protected]> wrote:
    > Related Internet-Drafts and RFCs (4 hits) 6 pages 2025-08-03 I-D Exis=
ts
    > draft-zhul-dhc-bnc-up-specific-suboption-00 Broadband Network
    > UP-Specific Information Suboption for the DHCP Relay Agent Option 9
    > pages 2025-07-04 I-D Exists

Seems straightforward, although I don't know/understand the underlying
technology/network architecture.  Many TLAs not expanded.
I think we'd have to adopt it or it would have to be AD-sponsored.

    > draft-nygren-dhc-recommended-ipv6-address-01 DHCPv6 Recommended IPv6
    > Address Option 7 pages 2025-04-24 I-D Exists

Seems useful.  Worth adopting...
But, to be useful we'd want at least one or two cloud providers to be
interested, and some DHC client implmentations to care.  Unclear to me at
this point if something like docker/podman/etc. need to do anything.

    > draft-lin-dhc-dhcpv6-active-leasequery-quic-00 DHCPv6 Active Leaseque=
ry
    > over QUIC 7 pages 2025-03-03 I-D Exists

Adds security to what was a TCP-only (not TLS, not HTTPS) transport.
I'm not clear what QUIC really brings other than lack of head of Q blocking.
Is that really so important in a DC/Enterprise environment?
Who is going to implement this?
Seems like it could be done without IETF permission... I think allocation of
an ALPN is the major thing.  The UDP port allocation seems minor.

    > draft-tojens-dhcp-option-concat-considerations-01 Expires soon DHCP
    > Option Concatenation Considerations

Seems like real world useful experience, with a real problem to fix.
I assume that MS' DHCP server and client will be implementations.

    > The QUIC draft is an interesting question as to whether this is neede=
d,
    > but it also isn=E2=80=99t a big deal if someone finds it useful and i=
s willing
    > to move it forward and implement it.

Agreed.

    > The concat considerations was never updated after the March IETF
    > discussion? Not sure if maybe interest in it has waned?

Good question.
I think we should adopt concat-considerations.

=2D-
Michael Richardson <[email protected]>   . o O ( IPv6 I=C3=B8T consulti=
ng )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

--=-=-=
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iQFKBAEBCgA0FiEEbsyLEzg/qUTA43uogItw+93Q3WUFAmi4mNgWHG1jcitpZXRm
QHNhbmRlbG1hbi5jYQAKCRCAi3D73dDdZexCB/wIuTHjVJ0c5iiHRZMS0Do7cnS2
oEsqKzq246w3XbM8yvvxsR4jAb1vV3cLVpiAUFSA6bbk4zunK14An1NxWmJoEbFl
62dcm3MscvCZOa1HzKYln4/Wm8xoguSyynhH2iLphaz/8hlNx2IeqLR15jhYjf01
jj7usKOAKRH/O6u1CmbcKKG9LVvA7gIubR8cMqNlHUPeD1uuTEf8egfIzSkKTOz1
P1T5se6ZoKAZKhXNgWP4k/cAvWIzT/245LoK3TH5ZU2Fzrs4vALDr3nEavgjHwpY
BQRz1O9KDR3lgJObucU1V1Ug8TMorDcZRuGvPW2OOf6G9N6kUUwDdSofNZam
=1FzR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--=-=-=--


--===============1009140630983626812==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Content-Disposition: inline

X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KZGhjd2cgbWFp
bGluZyBsaXN0IC0tIGRoY3dnQGlldGYub3JnClRvIHVuc3Vic2NyaWJlIHNlbmQgYW4gZW1haWwg
dG8gZGhjd2ctbGVhdmVAaWV0Zi5vcmcK

--===============1009140630983626812==--