IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9527 <draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-24> for your review

Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com> Wed, 10 January 2024 17:39 UTC

Return-Path: <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: auth48archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E2EBC14CF0D; Wed, 10 Jan 2024 09:39:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.108
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.108 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id D7mQ7_ANj1Vf; Wed, 10 Jan 2024 09:39:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ej1-x630.google.com (mail-ej1-x630.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::630]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BDFEC14F739; Wed, 10 Jan 2024 09:37:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ej1-x630.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-a2821884a09so361634566b.2; Wed, 10 Jan 2024 09:37:39 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1704908257; x=1705513057; darn=rfc-editor.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=gz7e6n/HzE1GSq4TjO0XhEyld2DPA8D/1Zd/6BT2Fnw=; b=E+wFwwO9UoD/LqE+71kGMOgPvZKqEeUy3+43y28ziBlmGqd80we9Brhgu6pVfydhVH gOyzmHzp/7HUl0Ra2Zt1ZvNiycZc9s0kKjeYkhC9C64ngDxd2XfA76Qt+6hezisFRN7l Q8rMMmi4oUhId/YV4KcVMm9ABFwiG10OdEb/Swex1OMAPnJL17jKTHk+M0pL30YWhvbs 2RhoyWgZTU1gYrLmb93+L2AMOKA3RAiH/vXbkvX6uyAIwiCmF1zIZlyof2s14udmDd4N 48hfY9Qfec93ffD5Kab1rdWpX1NNsIaXSTR3K+gGZVsybr2oveZPgrFDWniJHBcoeAFz WazQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1704908257; x=1705513057; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=gz7e6n/HzE1GSq4TjO0XhEyld2DPA8D/1Zd/6BT2Fnw=; b=BfXES2iSveOT/rWOc6UDZ3Rq4t8uJ3glA4Fs2V8eJX2ap0sqTsNUoX5h5eVZe4ymIi o+vIULcxL2zv9e8zkXr3AkLylmQBrh650/U9z8p9qG9JPiGB/UzmdpcXnni2DTqcVwcu T/+PAiIgGq+5mGR6BlhC0TVEx2oa9gml+IdsW95HkzRh8yiF6DQItvGs2pP1qZJYMzYb 1mqE4hCRe96S09sjLrm+gdcqaQrMcQlv3VDeuKl0aPkNVDu5Zh7q50xmeCAnm7ZRYmYx MUgcpQ3//zc+Mb9piVRMfDKiryx+VApe47ZixFNGBGjzw3MisimBrNCkZIMAhrTxfcy9 OTkA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwiFuH97lfiCld67CqS6+NKg15RUjETjY+TK/1lcx02uuUI9IlU 1SUH4WePlTh7RuuDSgtE+4M=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IEGUqUd81AEBhlwlXo1A1mctCIEy38pLJz3DRcwWpUrQQ1XE/6HQaOq7LmCa8HPL+dPfyoKXQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:f5a2:b0:a2c:2094:5d49 with SMTP id cm34-20020a170906f5a200b00a2c20945d49mr272516ejd.48.1704908257219; Wed, 10 Jan 2024 09:37:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.99] (109241122180.gdansk.vectranet.pl. [109.241.122.180]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m2-20020a170906234200b00a2684d2e684sm2297552eja.92.2024.01.10.09.37.36 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Jan 2024 09:37:36 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <845cbf09-6b72-4214-8ea3-4feeaca5bc9d@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 18:37:35 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US, pl
To: Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@ericsson.com>, Karen Moore <kmoore@amsl.com>, "ralf.weber@akamai.com" <ralf.weber@akamai.com>
Cc: "rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>, "homenet-ads@ietf.org" <homenet-ads@ietf.org>, "homenet-chairs@ietf.org" <homenet-chairs@ietf.org>, "stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie" <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, "evyncke@cisco.com" <evyncke@cisco.com>, "auth48archive@rfc-editor.org" <auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
References: <20231219055913.6247D85416@rfcpa.amsl.com> <DM6PR15MB3689927AE9203DF0A1D2A1C6E397A@DM6PR15MB3689.namprd15.prod.outlook.com> <AF88EB6E-FBE3-4027-8434-67AE84EC6099@amsl.com> <34CEAA50-9C5E-41FB-BD9F-7676AA02468C@amsl.com> <LV3PR15MB645455191C01346FDDF284D5E36A2@LV3PR15MB6454.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
From: Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <LV3PR15MB645455191C01346FDDF284D5E36A2@LV3PR15MB6454.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/auth48archive/5Vqm5y4uqK5KiiOCcnlECOIS7_A>
Subject: Re: [auth48] AUTH48: RFC-to-be 9527 <draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-24> for your review
X-BeenThere: auth48archive@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Archiving AUTH48 exchanges between the RFC Production Center, the authors, and other related parties" <auth48archive.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/auth48archive/>
List-Post: <mailto:auth48archive@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://mailman.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/auth48archive>, <mailto:auth48archive-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2024 17:39:15 -0000

On 9.01.2024 03:25, Daniel Migault wrote:
> I approve the changes.  I checked with the DHCP WG chairs some guidance regarding the use of  "DHCPv6 option" or "DHCP Option”. There response is:
> 
> """
> I would use dhcpv6 option to make it clear that it is for ipv6.
> 
> If the document is all and only about ipv6, you could use dhcp.
> """
> 
> I tend to say DHCPv6 option seems at least fine and propose we adopt that terminology.
Hi,

Apologies for late response. My personal preference is DHCPv6 Options.
It's clear that it applies to DHCPv6 only. The "DHCP options" in some
contexts can be interpreted as "either DHCPv4 or DHCPv6 options". And
that's not what we want to say here.

I've started reviewing the I-D. I'll post my approval (or comments)
soon. Hopefully tomorrow.

Thanks,
Tomek

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email