Re: [dhcwg] RFC3315bis - Naming

"Leaf Yeh" <leaf.yeh.sdo@gmail.com> Mon, 03 March 2014 10:02 UTC

Return-Path: <leaf.yeh.sdo@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42CD81A0C25 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 02:02:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eG8MO-Q-LCin for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 02:02:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-x22d.google.com (mail-we0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 455A31A0652 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 02:02:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-we0-f173.google.com with SMTP id w61so2878766wes.18 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 02:02:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:references:in-reply-to:subject:date:message-id :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:thread-index :content-language; bh=H35X9PoDuw3N5xYmU8B0GcEMNPyfRhshF/oAdWg2CNs=; b=wW7Uc7D2f2/Hcc/pToPjqVWEvOQCSuCuZvjiOFOVoi8Rm5eQ0xbLFjC6yQ2HaSa1F2 WyGz9Uzkw1yrwwVJcf7AbfkfTfbDiT0yO+oNRas/5c9gAKCDPvvYeqCk0VsNggs7lUTY JYDKkqejwkg0fP41yL1GG6x8bgzF1n9B65vl+KITATD0V1Ql2kWhBspng3PWDtwHnpH/ AYaYkyi6mHJCW7Pfm+3GhhVUlS0GpH8zWY/4mjvRslO4Q/XkFBf6juGV40pYi4wdI9aR t2FBUKL/9h492EKMRVW9VJbTdySEw66k9mY0A8anLGoyWUF26NxQaOwOViHLG2jo9r+V WRqQ==
X-Received: by 10.194.174.197 with SMTP id bu5mr4090169wjc.71.1393840919922; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 02:01:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from PC ([2001:67c:370:160:8ee:f9c9:af24:5c07]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id xt1sm32682403wjb.17.2014.03.03.02.01.58 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 03 Mar 2014 02:01:59 -0800 (PST)
From: "Leaf Yeh" <leaf.yeh.sdo@gmail.com>
To: "'Ole Troan'" <otroan@employees.org>, "'DHC WG'" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
References: <AF7019CB-8EEB-4E43-A5B0-4863D763B0E2@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <AF7019CB-8EEB-4E43-A5B0-4863D763B0E2@employees.org>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 10:01:54 -0000
Message-ID: <53145317.a1a1c20a.65c6.7639@mx.google.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 12.0
Thread-Index: Ac82wwbwQSQNC9WnRj6ca3xo8oyMRQAARBWA
Content-Language: zh-cn
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/0XrGa5cQs7j9wz2TmC9QAVmkNJU
Cc: "'Ralph Droms \(rdroms\)'" <rdroms@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] RFC3315bis - Naming
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 10:02:06 -0000

...rfc3633 requesting router and delegating router...

Ole - I don't see a new to maintain the separate terms. just use client,
relay and server.

I support this point. In the scenarios of DHCPv6-PD,

a.  the DHCPv6 server has not always to be a router;
b.  the CE router can be both a requesting router for requesting a prefix in
IA_PD, and a client for requesting an address in IA_NA; in fact, they use
the same message from the same function module, but are in different
options.


Best Regards,
Leaf



-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ole Troan
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 9:29 AM
To: DHC WG
Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms)
Subject: [dhcwg] RFC3315bis - Naming

just a perspective on naming and at the risk of bike shedding.

rfc3315 uses client, relay, server
rfc3633 requesting router and delegating router

rfc3633 was written with the expectation that there was no relay, this was
for the purpose of route injection.
actual deployments use relays, and there isn't any special function done on
the delegating router, and no need to have a special name for it.

in 3315bis with prefix delegation being integrated fully into the main DHCP
RFC, I don't see a new to maintain the separate terms. just use client,
relay and server.

cheers,
Ole