Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC - draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines-12 - Respond by July 15

From: Tom Taylor <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 15:01:51 -0500

I've just reviewed all the discussion of Server address and I think what 
I'm about to say is still relevant. This is just a trivial wording remark.

The last paragraph of Section 4 says:

    Typically, a 4o6 DHCP client communicates with the 4o6 DHCP servers
    using well-known All_DHCP_Relay_Agents_and_Servers multicast address.
    Client SHOULD request the 4o6 Server Address Option from a DHCPv6
    server and the server may be configured to respond to the client with
    one such option that contains one or more unicast addresses of the
    4o6 DHCP Servers.  The server includes 4o6 Server Address Option in
    Advertise and Reply messages.  The format of the option is defined in
    Section 6.3.

The word "typically" in the first sentence seems to clash with "[The] 
client SHOULD request ..." in the next sentence. Do you mean to say 
"initially" rather than "typically"?

Tom Taylor

On 01/07/2013 5:44 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
> The draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines-12,
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines-12,
> addresses the comments from the previous (-11) last call. While
> originally I expected to have a short (1 week) last call for the
> updated document, I think it best to have the standard 2 weeks given
> the time of year (and the Independence Day holiday in the US).
>
>
>
> Please review the draft and indicate whether or not you feel this
> version is ready to be published. Your response matters to the
> process, so please do respond.
>
>
>
> Do note: While I encourage full reviews, the main focus is to assure
> we have consensus on the recent changes from the -11. The -11 WGLC
> support will be taken into consideration.
>
>
>
> As Tomek is an author, I will evaluate consensus after July 15,
> 2013.
>
>
>
> -          Bernie
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list
> [email-masked] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 15:15:36 -0500

>   Typically, a 4o6 DHCP client communicates with the 4o6 DHCP servers

I'm confused.   Is there now text in the option guidelines draft about DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6?

---

From: Tomek Mrugalski <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2013 21:16:55 +0100

>    Typically, a 4o6 DHCP client communicates with the 4o6 DHCP servers
Eh, what?

You are responding to a last call that ended by July 15. It was about
option-guidelines-12. The latest version is now -14 and it just came
back from IESG.

Furthermore, what you are commenting on is from
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6 draft. That's a very different draft.
However, your comment is very timely sent as dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6 is going
through WGLC right now.

I will let the dhcp4-over-dhcpv6 authors respond, but (with my chair hat
off), I think "typically" is better. The 4o6 client communicates with
the server over All_DHCP_Relay_Agents_and_Server all the time, unless
server sends server address option. In principle it is very similar to
server unicast in plain DHCPv6. That option is somewhat infrequently
used. I expect the same to be true in dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6, so I think
"typically" is the right word here.

If you understood the text differently, perhaps the draft needs a bit of
clarification to explain that usage of 4o6 Server Address Option is
optional and you can have perfectly working 4o6 solution without it.

Tomek