Subject: Re: [Dhcpv6bis] [dhcpv6bis] #115 (XML 3315): DHCPv6 should not be used for DHCPv4 configuration

From: "dhcpv6bis issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 19:40:23 -0000

#115: DHCPv6 should not be used for DHCPv4 configuration

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 We will have update the following (from 3315, section 1) and perhaps that
 is a good place to state this:

    The operational models and relevant configuration information for
    DHCPv4 [RFC2132][RFC2131] and DHCPv6 are sufficiently different that
    integration between the two services is not included in this
    document.  If there is sufficient interest and demand, integration
    can be specified in a document that extends DHCPv6 to carry IPv4
    addresses and configuration information.

 Perhaps this can be changed to the following to address this issue (and
 use the wording Ted suggested).

    The operational models and relevant configuration information for
    DHCPv4 [RFC2132][RFC2131] and DHCPv6 are sufficiently different that
    integration between the two services is not included in this
    document. [RFC3315] suggested that future work might be to extend
    DHCPv6 to carry IPv4 address and configuration information. However,
    the current consensus of the IETF is that DHCPv4 should be used
    rather than DHCPv6 when conveying IPv4 configuration information to
    nodes.

 Comments?

-- 
----------------------------+--------------------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]  |       Owner:
     Type:  task            |      Status:  new
 Priority:  P1 blocker      |   Milestone:  B moderate, apply after merge
Component:  XML 3315        |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                  |
----------------------------+--------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/115#comment:2>
dhcpv6bis <http://tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/>

---

From: "dhcpv6bis issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 19:48:30 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * owner:   => [email-masked]

-- 
----------------------------+--------------------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]  |       Owner:  [email-masked]
     Type:  task            |      Status:  new
 Priority:  P1 blocker      |   Milestone:  B moderate, apply after merge
Component:  XML 3315        |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                  |
----------------------------+--------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/115#comment:3>
dhcpv6bis <http://tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/>

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 15:17:53 -0500

> Comments?

You could also refer to the DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6 document.

---

From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 20:44:55 +0000

Good point - I updated the proposed text - http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/115#comment:2.

- Bernie

---

From: "dhcpv6bis issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 02:06:36 -0000

* status:  new => closed
 * resolution:   => fixed

-- 
----------------------------+--------------------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]  |       Owner:  [email-masked]
     Type:  task            |      Status:  closed
 Priority:  P1 blocker      |   Milestone:  B moderate, apply after merge
Component:  XML 3315        |  Resolution:  fixed
 Keywords:                  |
----------------------------+--------------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/115#comment:4>
dhcpv6bis <http://tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/>