Subject: [Dhcpv6bis] [dhcpv6bis] #168 (bis-standardization-process): Remove ORO and IA_* from Reconfigure

From: "dhcpv6bis issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2016 02:00:56 -0000

#168: Remove ORO and IA_* from Reconfigure

 Section 19.1.1 of RFC 3315 has:

    The server MAY include an Option Request option to inform the client
    of what information has been changed or new information that has been
    added.  In particular, the server specifies the IA option in the
    Option Request option if the server wants the client to obtain new
    address information.  If the server identifies the IA option in the
    Option Request option, the server MUST include an IA option that
    contains no other sub-options to identify each IA that is to be
    reconfigured on the client.

 Same text is in draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-05 in section 17.2.11; with
 corresponding client processing text in 17.1.4 which kind of assumes the
 server include the ORO and IA options.

 We propose to REMOVE this OPTIONAL capability and simply have the server
 send Reconfigure messages without ORO and IA_* options. This is simpler
 processing for both client and server and allow the client to simply
 trigger the normal Renew or Rebind (or Information-Request) processing. We
 don't see much value in having this be more complicated for both servers
 and clients.

 We need to confirm with the DHC WG.

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

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/168>
dhcpv6bis <http://tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/>

---

From: "dhcpv6bis issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Sep 2016 02:52:18 -0000

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 See https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg17643.html for
 start of the discussion on this issue.

 Keywords:                               |  Resolution:
                                         |    Due Date:

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/168#comment:1>
dhcpv6bis <http://tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/>

---

From: "dhcpv6bis issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2016 18:24:27 -0000

As no one comments one way or the other, we have assumed that the WG is OK
 with this change and will apply it. Send a notice to DHC WG about this
 conclusion 9/21/2016.

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/168#comment:2>
dhcpv6bis <http://tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/>

---

From: "dhcpv6bis issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 03:16:15 -0000

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * owner:   => [email-masked]

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

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/168#comment:3>
dhcpv6bis <http://tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/>

---

From: "dhcpv6bis issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 03:17:42 -0000

* status:  new => assigned

     Type:  task                         |      Status:  assigned

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/168#comment:4>
dhcpv6bis <http://tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/>