Subject: [Dhcpv6bis] [dhcpv6bis] #167 (XML 3315): Use the term "Client" rather than "requesting router"

From: "dhcpv6bis issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 07:26:39 -0000

#167: Use the term "Client" rather than "requesting router"

 In the following thread: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg
 /ochf_rG02qEPQtVu-0flq7RgCuI Lorenzo points out that the RFC3315bis uses
 the term "requesting router" throughout the document to describe the host
 that has ability to request prefix delegation. We ported this terminology
 from RFC3633, which used this term because prefix delegation requests were
 specific to routers. Nowadays, prefix delegation mechanism is not used
 exclusively by routers anymore. Hence, we propose to use a generic term
 "Client" for the entities capable of sending requests for IPv6 addresses
 and/or prefix delegation (IA_NA + IA_PD).

 We already use the term "Client" in sections that discuss message creation
 and transmission. But, we still appear to have 72 occurrences of
 "delegating router" which should be replaced. We should also update
 section 5.3. to explicitly say that prefix delegation can be used by both
 routers and other hosts.

 If we make this change we should also consider giving up on using
 "delegating router" in favor of the term "server".

-- 
----------------------------------+------------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]  |      Owner:
     Type:  task                  |     Status:  new
 Priority:  P3 major              |  Milestone:  G open issues for WGLC
Component:  XML 3315              |   Keywords:
 Due Date:  08/08/2016            |
----------------------------------+------------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/167>
dhcpv6bis <http://tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/>

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 16:09:22 +0200

Agreed. There is no reason to use this terminology. It is confusing to
readers. However, for backwards compatibility we do need to mention the
historical meaning of the trend somewhere.

On Jul 20, 2016 09:26, "dhcpv6bis issue tracker" <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> _______________________________________________
> Dhcpv6bis mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcpv6bis
>