On Dec 21, 2012, at 8:27 AM, Ted Lemon <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Dec 21, 2012, at 7:48 AM, RAMAKRISHNADTV <[email protected]> > wrote: >> As Ted mentioned, our draft only proposes a new sub-option for relay-agent >> option which was originally created as part of RFC3046. So, the security >> considerations for RFC3046 apply to our draft as well. RFC3046 deployments >> may >> use RFC4030 as explained above. So, we indicated in our draft to refer to >> both RFC3046 and RFC4030. But there are no specific security issues in the >> new relay-id sub-op >> tion itself to make RFC4030 a MUST. > > To put it a bit differently, changing the security considerations for RFC3046 > is out of scope for this document. It could certainly be argued that the > security considerations for RFC3046 are too weak, but if that is an argument > that someone wants to make, the argument should be made in the context of > updating RFC3046, not in the context of adding a new DHCP relay option. > Thanks Ted, that makes perfect sense. As I responded separately to Ramakrishna, is the SHOULD use 4030 language a new requirement specific to this draft? Or is it just describing requirements in 3046 or elsewhere? Thanks! Ben.
