Subject: [dhcwg] [dhc] #10: Response to WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-l2ra

From: "dhc issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:02:48 -0000

#10: Response to WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-l2ra
------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]  |       Owner:  Ted Lemon
     Type:  defect            |      Status:  new      
 Priority:  major             |   Milestone:           
Component:  l2ra              |     Version:           
 Severity:  In WG Last Call   |    Keywords:           
------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
 These notes include Ted Lemon's comments and the authors' responses.

 From: Ted Lemon [Ted.Lemon at nominum.com][[BR]]
 Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 1:57 AM[[BR]]
 To: Bharat Joshi[[BR]]
 Cc: pavan_kurapati[[BR]]
 Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Discussion of draft-ietf-dhc-l2ra-01.txt prior to dhc
 WG   last call[[BR]]

 Sorry, the notes were on my OLPC, which I don't normally use when I'm
 at home, so I kept meaning to fetch them and then getting sidetracked.

 This is what I wrote in my notes when I reviewed it:

 l2ra

 It seems broken that the relay agents broadcast the DHCP message on
 all ports - that's revealing information to subscribers about each
 other that needn't be revealed.

 <Bharat>[[BR]]
 A normal layer 2 switch [acting as relay agen as well] may not be
 configured with a Up-link port or a port which leads to the router. In
 this case, it needs to broadcast the DHCP message on all ports. We
 included this in the text to show the need and importance of identifying
 the Up-Link port.[[BR]]
 </Bharat>

 4.1.1 seems to go into too much detail about the actual DHCP protocol.

 <Bharat>[[BR]]
 We had started with minimal set of explanation but few internal reviewers
 and one external reviewer specifically asked few questions because of
 which we end up explaning everything here. I think this way it looks
 complete and does not left anything question open.[[BR]]
 </Bharat>

 4.1.2, part 2, DHCP reply messages sounds like a protocol message.
 It would be better to say "in responses to unicast messages from the
 client".[[BR]]

 <Bharat>[[BR]]
 Yes. I can fix this.[[BR]]
 </Bharat>

 4.2.2 seems broken.   Not sure what to do here - the proposed solution
 is probably least likely to break badly.

 <Bharat>[[BR]]
 I did not get your point here. We have mentioned the issues due to
 introduction of L2 RA. Did you see any issue with the text here?[[BR]]
 </Bharat>

 Mostly the draft seems way too verbose.   You have to read it closely
 to see all the issues that are brought out.   It might be more
 readable/usable if as much repetition of information from the DHCP
 protocol spec as possible were removed.

 <Bharat>[[BR]]
 As mentioned above, this was done mostly to not leave any open question on
 how L2 RA handle a specific message. Let me look at it again and will try
 to remove some obvious things.[[BR]]
 </Bharat>

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dhc/trac/ticket/10>
dhc <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dhc/>

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

---

From: "dhc issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:12:40 -0000

#10: Response to WG discussion of draft-ietf-dhc-l2ra
------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]  |        Owner:  Ted Lemon
     Type:  defect            |       Status:  new      
 Priority:  major             |    Milestone:           
Component:  l2ra              |      Version:           
 Severity:  In WG Last Call   |   Resolution:           
 Keywords:                    |  
------------------------------+---------------------------------------------

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dhc/trac/ticket/10#comment:1>
dhc <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dhc/>