Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 - Respond by Dec 9, 2013

Qi Sun <sunqi.csnet.thu@gmail.com> Wed, 11 December 2013 15:23 UTC

Return-Path: <sunqi.csnet.thu@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 6101C1ADFBF for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 07:23:17 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, HTML_MESSAGE=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 IMH3j8DrdgNN for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 07:23:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pb0-x22d.google.com (mail-pb0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72C161ADFB5 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 07:23:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pb0-f45.google.com with SMTP id rp16so10153266pbb.32 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 07:23:09 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=eDNwW5aroaw9lnP79ikLlJ9G/ESc5ViELEvVvmNGbak=; b=A7K+EBj3wph8TIa8S8V+UO+TJx37ybjcYzfVJiaUGCpsXjpS/9uhYCk3yyKi4j1AQ/ OvE6yFO+w6dBmLEZiNu2c/md+fqD5rkUCDkNLKpV/b0hJ7pDcH9q5CM7ZdHwaBd1RvTR P94AnbpL7KGEeVu42/t9wCiQesvXY4Y9j8C43ztf085lfXLhISA3GogB/d1NyQGyoC2E ALv9osBMXc0ypSUYA/XTq7JJS558kH1yTvmaw1QqRKDg99Q05CyPasrz677Wosgmsw6D S+hh7gZF6H+C7ULxVpREBbzBeTMgZu2vb+IS/ah/1M/ZyIRbqkoqiyaxYzgBj2pVhQDP EiUg==
X-Received: by 10.67.3.34 with SMTP id bt2mr2277824pad.3.1386775388802; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 07:23:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.110] ([59.64.255.197]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id by1sm32918331pbd.25.2013.12.11.07.23.04 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 11 Dec 2013 07:23:08 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-43-446282126
From: Qi Sun <sunqi.csnet.thu@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1ADD590C@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 23:22:55 +0800
Message-Id: <CE4E8958-57AA-4D87-AA80-F2B12FF1A698@gmail.com>
References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1ADA99A8@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1ADD590C@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
To: Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 - Respond by Dec 9, 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: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 15:23:17 -0000

Hi Bernie, 

Many thanks for your thorough review! We will address the issues you mentioned in the next version.

About item 2:

> 2.       I think we should rename the messages to be BOOTP, not BOOT. BOOTPREQUESTV6 and BOOTPREPLYV6 (and Bootp-request-v6, Bootp-reply-v6). (I also wonder whether we really need the v6, but it may help in clarifying this from standard BOOTP packets, so OK to leave it.)

I check the the RFC 951 (Bootstrap Protocol) that defines BOOTP messages. The two message types defined is BOOTREQUEST and BOOTREPLY. In order to be consistent with that naming system, we chose BOOTREQUESTV6 and BOOTREPLYV6 as the new message names in DHCPv4 over DHCPv6. 

Would it be OK if we keep the current message names?

Best Regards,
Qi

> 
>  
> From: dhcwg [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernie Volz (volz)
> Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2013 5:03 PM
> To: dhcwg@ietf.org
> Subject: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 - Respond by Dec 9, 2013
>  
> Folks, the authors of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03.txt) 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 9th, 2013.
>  
> At the time of this writing, there is no IPR reported against this draft.
>  
> Bernie will be the document shepherd.
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> -          Tomek & Bernie
>