Subject: [dhcwg] Request for adoption of draft-fkhp-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements

From: Naveen Kottapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 12:28:09 +0530

Hello DHC WG,

We would like to request for the adoption of our draft
draft-fkhp-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-fkhp-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements>
that
was submitted in June-2019.  As a background, please find the details of
draft below.

The draft addresses the below problems by defining the requirements of a
DHCPv6 Relay agent when relaying the delegated prefixes.

1.  Client / Relay / Server goes out of sync resulting in route
mismanagement which in turn results in traffic issues.
2.  Relay rejects client messages due to unknown or stale prefix.
3.  Relay generates messages ‘on behalf’ of the server
4.  Issues observed when more than 1 prefix is delegated to clients

We would like to hear feedback from the forum on the draft and will be
happy to address the issues in draft (if any).

Yours,
Naveen.

---

From: Li HUANG <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 15:31:30 +0800

15:30.hk S8 Sept 26 2019

Thank you for this information reminding,  wishes  an successful agenda in
106 Singapore.

Sincerely yours

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019, 14:58 Naveen Kottapalli <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-fkhp-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements> that
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2019 09:42:29 +0200

Hi,

If the question on whether or not adoption is supported, then my answer 
is yes, I support adoption.

If the question is to receive feedback of the draft, then my answer is 
this: I support requirement R-1 'relay MUST maintain a local routing 
table dynamically updated with prefixes and next hops as they [the 
prefixes] are delegated to clients'.

Alex

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 14:55:15 +0200

Is this a requirements draft, a problem statement draft or a solution draft?

The filename has 'requirements' in it, but there are two sections: 
'Problems Observed' and 'Requirements'.  The former makes for a Problem 
Statement draft.

Its Intended Status is 'Standards Track'.  But typical Requirement and 
Problem Statement drafts are intended as INFORMATIONAL.

Alex

Le 26/09/2019 à 09:42, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
>> was submitted in June-2019.  As a background, please find the details 
>> of draft below.
>>
>> The draft addresses the below problems by defining the requirements of 
>> a DHCPv6 Relay agent when relaying the delegated prefixes.
>>

---

From: Li HUANG <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 22:14:19 +0800

22:10.hk S8 m800

Good Day,

Looking for some who would and be able to get the solution.  Since OS
publisher would not support for user without company contract at commercial
group.

This is a pay way inquiry to some who can make this deal off recommandated
by IETF hopefully.

Sincerely yours
Li HUANG

On Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 20:55 Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
wrote:

> >> <
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-fkhp-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements> that
>

---

From: Naveen Kottapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2019 09:07:29 +0530

The document started with problem statement and how it can be addressed.
The approach we to address the problem is by defining the requirements of
the node that are to be handled.

---

From: Naveen Kottapalli <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2019 09:08:31 +0530

Are you looking for the implementation of the requirements (node)?

On Mon, 30 Sep 2019, 19:44 Li HUANG, <[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Mon, Sep 30, 2019, 20:55 Alexandre Petrescu <
> [email-masked]> wrote:
>