I have reviewed this document as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments. The document defines a protocol extension that allows infrastructure components in DSL/cable networks to query a master DHCP server for its static and/or dynamic bindings, to allow them to quickly recovery after reboot. Summary In my opinion, a major security issue is not covered sufficiently. Details I have not reviewed the protocol itself in depth. However I believe that it suffers from the "recursive security considerations" syndrome, where the current draft depends on RFC 4388 (6 years old) for its security, which in turn refers to RFC 3118 (11 years old) for parts of its security. IMHO the relevant threats for a bulk DHCP query are very different from those that RFC 3118 considered for generic DHCP. I worry most about the privacy implications: if I am a subscriber in Smalltown, pop. 10,000, I may be sharing a single DHCP server with the entire population. If any subscriber can issue a bulk query for the whole town once every hour, and thereby map any IP address to a MAC address, this has a serious effect on subscribers' privacy. This is what the current draft says about access control: Servers MAY restrict Bulk Leasequery connections and DHCPBULKLEASEQUERY messages to certain requestors. Connections not from permitted requestors SHOULD be closed immediately, to avoid server connection resource exhaustion. Servers MAY restrict some requestors to certain query types. Servers MAY reply to queries that are not permitted with the DHCPLEASEQUERYDONE message with a status-code option status of NotAllowed, or MAY simply close the connection. This IMHO is way too weak, specifically the first MAY. The Security Considerations refer to RFC 4388 for "restriction to trusted requestors", but I couldn't find any relevant language there either, other than a reference to RFC 3118. Thanks, Yaron