Subject: Re: [Dhcpv6bis] [dhcpv6bis] #154 (XML 3315): Meaningless 'reconfigure accept' option in reply messages?

From: "dhcpv6bis issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2016 13:26:14 -0000

#154: Meaningless 'reconfigure accept' option in reply messages?

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * owner:   => [email-masked]

-- 
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
 Reporter:                           |       Owner:
  [email-masked]         |  [email-masked]
     Type:  task                     |      Status:  new
 Priority:  P1 blocker               |   Milestone:
Component:  XML 3315                 |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                           |    Due Date:  31/03/2016
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/154#comment:1>
dhcpv6bis <http://tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/>

---

From: "dhcpv6bis issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2016 20:56:35 -0000

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 During the 2016-02-03 call we (Bernie, Ted, Tim and Tomek) talked about
 this and we think that the way to go is to change the text to say if the
 policy requires the client to support reconfigure, the server drops the
 message. The current text can't work as the reconfigure accept sent by the
 server can't make the client to start supporting it.

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/154#comment:2>
dhcpv6bis <http://tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/>

---

From: "dhcpv6bis issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2016 21:38:48 -0000

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 Additional points - Is server to client Reconfigure-Accept really needed?
 If server agrees to client using reconfigure, it will send the Reconfigure
 key option so that should be good enough?

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/154#comment:3>
dhcpv6bis <http://tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/>

---

From: "dhcpv6bis issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2016 21:39:47 -0000

Oh ... we should be careful not to invalidate existing implementations and
 there is the risk that existing clients rely on this behavior and will not
 enable Reconfigure if they don't get Reconfigure-Accept back from server?

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/154#comment:4>
dhcpv6bis <http://tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/>