Subject: [Dhcpv6bis] [dhcpv6bis] #139 (XML 3315): Would a list of mandatory options for stateful useful?

From: "dhcpv6bis issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 11:42:52 -0000

#139: Would a list of mandatory options for stateful useful?

 We currently have RFC3738 and Section 5.1 in 3315bis that explains what's
 the minimum set of features needed for stateless mode. Do you think it
 would be useful to have similar list of the stateful?

 The rationale for this is to respond to people who claim they won't
 support stateful DHCPv6, because it's overly complicated. An clear list
 would address this concern (for example: you don't need to support
 authentication if you don't want to).

 I was thinking about a list of features that are mandatory and optional.
 For example support for IA_NA, IAAddress, client-id, server-id and status
 codes is clearly mandatory. Server unicast support and rapid-commit isn't.
 But what about preference option? Does the client absolutely have to
 understand it to claim compliance? How about Confirm message? Can a client
 that will never send a Confirm claim to be 3315bis conformant?

 Another example is elapsed option. The text says client MUST send elapsed
 option. Is there a reasonable rationale for this? I know of a server that
 is very strict in its checks and drops any Solicits that don't include
 elapsed time.

 What about a server that will run in embedded environment, like your
 smartphone. Does it have to support interface-id options or even relayed
 messages?

-- 
----------------------------------------+-----------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]  |      Owner:
     Type:  task                        |     Status:  new
 Priority:  P1 blocker                  |  Milestone:
Component:  XML 3315                    |   Keywords:
 Due Date:                              |
----------------------------------------+-----------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/139>
dhcpv6bis <http://tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/>

---

From: "dhcpv6bis issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 12:02:44 -0000

#139: Would a list of mandatory options for stateful be useful?

-- 
----------------------------------------+------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]  |       Owner:
     Type:  task                        |      Status:  new
 Priority:  P1 blocker                  |   Milestone:
Component:  XML 3315                    |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                              |    Due Date:
----------------------------------------+------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/139#comment:1>
dhcpv6bis <http://tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/>

---

From: "dhcpv6bis issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 14:56:30 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * milestone:   => C awaiting consensus

Comment:

 We had a brief discussion on this and Bernie thinks should be discussed on
 a call before we move forward with this work, moving to C category.

-- 
----------------------------------------+----------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]  |       Owner:
     Type:  task                        |      Status:  new
 Priority:  P1 blocker                  |   Milestone:  C awaiting
Component:  XML 3315                    |  consensus
 Keywords:                              |  Resolution:
                                        |    Due Date:
----------------------------------------+----------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/139#comment:2>
dhcpv6bis <http://tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/>