IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Some comments regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-unknown-msg-01

Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com> Mon, 29 July 2013 07:49 UTC

Return-Path: <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C806921F9CF1 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 00:49:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id N6J6Gsc175I8 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 00:49:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-x230.google.com (mail-pb0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::230]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EA0721F9CE8 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 00:49:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f48.google.com with SMTP id ma3so752873pbc.21 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 00:49:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=rTBnPLC4aJVWgcpJ7q6wJJJrAQUmv8Wi0nk8pO5YnyU=; b=ueH5wtxJKQzmJ4ayltMNE1C9gzvt3iOWCEjSlb3VeIadZLyBoj3MN9UnsfI4DzJNm3 oQG4mWVXl49QmUv8vFSbttNtralhRP9tr3C06GUe4ahACZMf6xKSLcs15/qSQ++YuocJ igFyxRS2/R0gxO2KglhKQly9U6rb6h7I7d5pB5yOOwdSOBWSuBKpHrPoAMpWWrA6h4vC mObDEgoccqtdDXI3EsvBIeoB4UgIAAmUiwi/5kQUv7fTjUdH/xgMKvDWX9P5C2ebjYfY 6rJ212Kv/buk4Jyf0A33AWgLTFvclzlNI7LKNxv54AZCMwe1AbdalvXAw9wYV1eYQblR THew==
X-Received: by 10.68.217.137 with SMTP id oy9mr66117936pbc.130.1375084191833; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 00:49:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dhcp-108b.meeting.ietf.org ([2001:df8:0:16:cabc:c8ff:fedf:daff]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id nv6sm75458523pbc.6.2013.07.29.00.49.49 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 29 Jul 2013 00:49:51 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <51F61E9A.4040105@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 09:49:46 +0200
From: Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130620 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
References: <CAFGoqUPOVNOknZFD7JkhOSDqu63VML6iH7yyuA-je-_8W=G2bQ@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307752334C7@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <CAFGoqUMLgyVFnhbF7LYhaiFm8HZt3H4T=Oj_014g_U0LcZBD0A@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63077523396E@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63077523396E@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "<dhcwg@ietf.org>" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "<cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn>" <cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Some comments regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-unknown-msg-01
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 29 Jul 2013 07:49:55 -0000

On 13-07-29 09:33, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Jul 29, 2013, at 9:05 AM, Marcin Siodelski <msiodelski@gmail.com> wrote:
>> According to RFC3315, server may use Relay-Reply message if it can't send Reconfigure directly to the client:
> 
> Right.   That's a relay-reply message, not a reconfigure message.
Yes, but the message type is irrelevant. Marcin's point was that
the draft says that that server will never send a message that is not a
response to a message from a relay, which is not true.

Note that the draft says nothing about message types. Here's part of the
text that needs to be updated in my opinion: "A standards-compliant DHCP
server will never send a message to the a relay other than in response
to a message from a relay,...".

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email