Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-unknown-msg-03 - Respond by Dec 2, 2013

Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com> Tue, 03 December 2013 20:00 UTC

Return-Path: <tomasz.mrugalski@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 6F8BA1AE1D9 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 12:00:28 -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 tBLWEGo9r3SS for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 12:00:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wg0-x231.google.com (mail-wg0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AE1D1AE1EA for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 12:00:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wg0-f49.google.com with SMTP id x12so13792939wgg.4 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 12:00:18 -0800 (PST)
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:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=yDvwPVLVH7HKykNlvXCzXZqxHJQ/DZncxZIZQ3cqyNw=; b=Rx00zCIhmbidH1hVh2oyK2cqdijS9FSWxpWzmzc87PQ0W9wmxqG4nNopMNnkbMieoa dBSp9JoYldDB24gRgB6aIUF9QzUMxJgLRd6iyAlddGLckFyCvC51TLzYBMvJAf6qOyae u8vX9fvRtfbVdqRbgMsnBaVg1GmRG/BKOBNBycJkUg2eIJzl5ZC7Eh1bkdBb5nbDaswI 2EJ9ukBc+VnAG6CE7DVlg/LsZ3iu+Q4d90XbOK+l2txruD5Ttwv/F/vj5rtwKPrCnkYT gwae42HfqE+6baRUAT3U4m/SVKzKFpoGnPnIZfSBqVZTR3K7RpgF20NPHR7pbe6NnfIG ipJQ==
X-Received: by 10.194.235.230 with SMTP id up6mr20652229wjc.30.1386100818049; Tue, 03 Dec 2013 12:00:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:470:6061:0:f66d:4ff:fe96:58f2? ([2001:470:6061:0:f66d:4ff:fe96:58f2]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id dn2sm8505179wid.1.2013.12.03.12.00.16 for <dhcwg@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 03 Dec 2013 12:00:17 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <529E383E.4050302@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 20:59:58 +0100
From: Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AD98DE0@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AD98DE0@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2
X-TagToolbar-Keys: D20131203205958906
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-unknown-msg-03 - Respond by Dec 2, 2013
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: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 20:00:28 -0000

On 18.11.2013 18:15, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
> Folks, the authors of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-unknown-msg-03
> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-unknown-msg-03)
> believe it is ready for working group last call. Please review this
> draft and indicate whether or not you feel it is ready to be published.
> Your input is important! Please respond by Dec 2^nd , 2013.

I strongly support this document moving forward after the comments below
are addressed.

1. Abstract. The full name of the protocol is "Dynamic Host
Configuration Protocol for IPv6", not "Dynamic Host Configuration
Protocol version 6". (That is also used in section 1) .There is no such
thing as DHCPv6 function node. I propose to update the abstract as:

   Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) isn't specific
   about handling messages with unknown types.  This memo describes the
   problems and defines how a DHCPv6 entities node should behave when
   receiving unknown messages. This document updates RFC 3315.

2. Section 3: "Another issue is that, it's not specific in RFC3315 about
what a relay agent... " => "Another issue is that RFC3315 does not
specify what a relay agent..."

3. Section 4.1 "In the case that a new type of relay message is sent to
a relay agent but the relay agent doesn't recognize it, the message is
put into a Relay-forward message and sent to the server.  Then the
server knows the relay agent doesn't support the new message.". The last
sentence is not true. The server can't really distinguish if the relay
supports the message or not, as in both cases the reaction (forward
towards the server) would be the same.

I think removing the last sentence would be helpful here.

Alternatively, perhaps you wanted to discuss the case where the new
message is sent to the relay by the server, relay doesn't support it, so
it forwards it back to the server. That is a worthy thing to mention,
but the current text does not reflect that situation. You may address
that by extending the first sentence a bit: "In the case that a new type
of relay message is sent by the server to a relay agent but the relay
agent doesn't recognize it, the message is put into a Relay-forward
message and sent to the server.".

If you don't have any preference, I would prefer the first approach
(remove second sentence) as it is more generic.

4. Section 4.2 "If the relay agent received messages other than
Relay-forward and Relay-reply, it MUST forward them as is described in
Section 20.1.1 of [RFC3315].". This sentence is incorrect. See RFC6977
and the Reconfigure-reply message definition. Relays are often have
requestor capability, so they are likely to receive LEASEQUERY-REPLY,
LEASEQUERY-DATA and LEASEQUERY-DONE messages as well (See RFC5007 and
5460). There may be other message types that are are targeted at the
relay agent itself (and not expected to be relayed).

Anyway, I think the right thing to say here is:

   If the relay agent received a Relay-forward message, Section 20.1.2
   of [RFC3315] defines the related behavior.  If the relay agent
   received messages other than Relay-forward and Relay-reply and the
   relay agent does not recognize its message type, it MUST forward
   them as is described in Section 20.1.1 of [RFC3315].

Thank you for doing this work. It is very useful clarification.

Tomek