Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements-02.txt

ianfarrer@gmx.com Thu, 08 October 2020 14:04 UTC

Return-Path: <ianfarrer@gmx.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 2EDF13A099E for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 07:04:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=gmx.net
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 WtdJ9Tkwt3Li for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 07:04:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mout.gmx.net (mout.gmx.net [212.227.15.15]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C5F563A084A for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 07:04:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=gmx.net; s=badeba3b8450; t=1602165877; bh=QFktVLMabWgto7Kf8nmeQnA6C/fjUYk4S94I3Idzp5g=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To; b=Bh+c2T7FLCviWzSVYSQ+gxgh4ne0ze/d6up6CMywvXjx8MyWR79DKdBCT2pwysDDX hz1I4R8PQ2PgU84Dq2Dyg+jnpJUArPARlHg1s8zd0rrXazDCQUSl4Iocs76c/ue50O RYs/T1haEof7NZzU7GidGDIiNaD/GU9Ml38iE4uU=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from [192.168.128.43] ([87.79.171.64]) by mail.gmx.com (mrgmx004 [212.227.17.184]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MPGW7-1k0zQf3iur-00Pe3S; Thu, 08 Oct 2020 16:04:36 +0200
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.15\))
From: ianfarrer@gmx.com
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR11MB254950BDC4AAC52BAB8F0C83CF0A0@BYAPR11MB2549.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 16:04:36 +0200
Cc: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AA8201F7-2F84-40DA-8CB1-1B02ADFCDF16@gmx.com>
References: <160206597879.10765.16093538868178381762@ietfa.amsl.com> <7DA789F6-8C44-4DC9-A9D3-6DFE6D4F4A0E@gmx.com> <BYAPR11MB254950BDC4AAC52BAB8F0C83CF0A0@BYAPR11MB2549.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.15)
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:VFgdFamU1qFETG6iM74eLBXwQnzK/tuB8jTA3bB+WJdZIKltfEv koow3l30DHHys1OhDmYTOnUluLEBLhWvb4Rlm3cxsfwGMbYdRvJuiGNT+K3Q78mcDKFL96Q rF6uU1QRSc9+cvYoMMz0q3I/nCVdC5SUO6r7EI63jSb2UPqRHVmnSH9mA1RKIQYowRbzmIE kFuSZh0D0fCtf7Z7tEVLw==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:b+25/dJAGSc=:zyjPTFLn9s++sovMOhkHG2 tYXjybFV5iZYkePCOpLNf60erXABkidAIimQsyqc8EpxRKyXtGyvriJyKuHgD9SFBMRRq4IdM +HZdICnzI/ofovT6aMMEJGmrn6epNZXr8RgFOQ6z962H6aliFSeaBHKK9rotzepImAAUqje3J z0lfpBWPOcfzgonHZDCI/fM18GgYU5AHotJ9Y5H28zkaith/mLeAJANx9rE9aQyZhmGSp0D10 8XNJj8krc11lTPF+StYahYhHj3kfLiAQvVEffW5aESehpW/Ol6xLt5zJ6bUZCVOYdvf3wIpHH warQuwvEXPHe7+cLDabDrZQUa+oE0dbJwDbpksdbM1vwZlMRECmaVAUga2ebhEgDIJfjQ12oS ZsDebB0Old7nQx4qgMci05USXVMuUSxlPLe3xdNkHnMo6+fCjfCWstnW6bAa8NlTxi2o2uVj/ C1wQ3ut4i9vKbln8tJvitKQIRzbXC5tLQfdQkkon+X1NW1U9MFt9GvPE7rsqRXjwF3kCXcbAT pgUFKDFk2dounjDvmsPOlEvBLaVlWmM9lRNLJg2x48oOi7UtV389wMAvzDw+wPVH6NwNOQX1h 2ooOZOqa+fmTDIXGiaWW/YyCTQgOTo74yAuI6NjAZAnb5UFAKzmDohDTwzMXzSV2I9/oEJrFu 6KpSTC4HFN/d2JwkJ8/mLZU6+SYEv0IZqu6hU8B2RXh3qrM6fCUcJD3Mm6hKrrjha4r/rTYmO 8tC6rA5e+PguQ4BC1mAdpsxUEBxq2GukMJm+TzFSiArlc1/+M8Xpr7LSJlZoaAlUrR3BGDmc4 4Z8VSMsOdHwdMFAFRglucoljjyIbjhHC30vhLwfkf6IW8TZoS7xSBCOEuDF4o/GwLBdAeK8pB NpBkoiRKniH7aVF7r1/04XxLMYf6vmEZeejM1rNq3P5RyGfUh1qZjnDiGmJvKci2hTNTtnVqM FjRbiWk4BynN/vN5dvHqlAyK+gTzR5nyeYDWxpd5WanDxHKi6PhEluYStXLA7yBEIS1Ei0+BN SIjj5o0nJnAEretrykL7uhTFAD0UTGQ5tH/DB2wn9YT0/ZlO6Ja921EvzJxTiKU9OlkHNU3OP ufitYybCzKu+mClwJx2gaQYz5skEBho5yq7+6cNKAQyf4dWLYEBCE25CgZEfPLmbdGMtiPnHq e6dR2EZaEPcewDFAk1mObVMMgWs9ikSCbcJvDCdQbLgnRcNxOjYbNQbWUaby0GthRfQvaGXyJ ejAu4yssEq4hCPe6am7cCDe6pW0OUTjiS4wO4+w==
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/1vgMmF5YoLSZunTbaI3EjiaPpEA>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements-02.txt
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 08 Oct 2020 14:04:45 -0000

Hi Bernie,

Thanks for the comments. Did you have any thoughts about the proposed change to the title?

Please see inline below.

Thanks,
Ian

> On 7. Oct 2020, at 21:08, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi:
> 
> Thanks Ian for the updates.
> 
> I suggest we wait a few days to see if v6ops or ipv6 working groups have any comments (as your emailed them) before I proceed with sending the document on.
> 
> 
> In reviewing, I also noticed the following minor items:
> 
> Minor nit in section 1?
> 
>   Multi-hop DHCPv6 relaying is not affected, as the requirements in
>   this document are solely applicable to the DHCP relay agent co-
>   located with the first-hop router that the DHCPv6 client requesting
>   the prefix is connected to, no changes to any subsequent relays in
>   the path are needed.
> 
> Would "so no changes" (or thus no changes) be appropriate? It just seems something is missing here. Though two free grammar checkers I used didn't seem to flag it broken (either with or without my changes).

[if - Re-reading this, the sentence is overlong and the commas make it difficult to parse. I think the following wording clears this up:

  Multi-hop DHCPv6 relaying is not affected.  The requirements in
  this document are solely applicable to the DHCP relay agent co-
  located with the first-hop router that the DHCPv6 client requesting
  the prefix is connected to, so no changes to any subsequent relays in
  the path are needed.
]

> 
> And, in section 3.5:
> 
>   If the client loses information about a prefix that it is delegated
>   while the lease entry and associated route is still active in the
>   delegating relay, then the relay will forward traffic to the client
>   which the client will return to the relay (which is the client's
>   default gateway (learnt via an RA).  The loop will continue until
>   either the client is successfully reprovisioned via DHCP, or the
>   lease ages out in the relay.
> 
> Missing a second closing parenthesis: (which is the client's default gateway (learnt via an RA)). 

[if - OK]

> 
> Please do not publish an 03 for now as these issues are very minor. We can see if other comments are raised.
> 
> - Bernie
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcwg <dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of ianfarrer@gmx.com
> Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 6:25 AM
> To: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements-02.txt
> 
> Hi
> 
> We’ve just posted an update to this draft based on the comments received in WGLC. Many thanks for your reviews and suggestions.
> 
> The major changes since -01 are:
> 
> 1. Rewritten abstract section
> 2. Provided clarification on multi-hop relays
> 3. Changed text related to handling of unknown messages by relays and removed req. G-2 that covered this.
> 4. Provided references to sections in CMTS and BNG documents
> 5. Added section about forwarding loops between clients and relays
> 6. Updated requirement R-4 to detail on avoiding the loops
> 
> I think that all of the WGLC comments are now addressed, with the exception of a question from Ole regarding implementors experience related to requirement R-4. I’ve just sent out a question on v6ops and 6man to see if we can get feedback on this.
> 
> One final question. The draft is currently called "DHCPv6 Prefix Delegating Relay” which is not particularly descriptive. We suggest changing it to ‘Requirements for DHCPv6 Prefix Delegating Relays’. Any objections to this?
> 
> Thanks,
> Ian
>