[dhcwg] [dhc] #10: Response to WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-l2ra
"dhc issue tracker" <trac@tools.ietf.org> Tue, 07 October 2008 18:02 UTC
Return-Path: <dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: dhcwg-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F188D3A6B65; Tue, 7 Oct 2008 11:02:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 567603A6A39 for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Oct 2008 11:02:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KEwJYMHEGgiG for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Oct 2008 11:02:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from merlot.tools.ietf.org (merlot.tools.ietf.org [194.146.105.14]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45E933A6AD9 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Oct 2008 11:02:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42119 helo=merlot.tools.ietf.org) by merlot.tools.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <trac@tools.ietf.org>) id 1KnGtU-0004Aq-Mg; Tue, 07 Oct 2008 20:02:48 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: dhc issue tracker <trac@tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Version: 0.11.1
Precedence: bulk
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
X-Mailer: Trac 0.11.1, by Edgewall Software
To: rdroms@cisco.com
X-Trac-Project: dhc
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:02:48 -0000
X-URL: http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dhc/
X-Trac-Ticket-URL: http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dhc/trac/ticket/10
Message-ID: <057.28353808bb9806db17f535217ac17198@tools.ietf.org>
X-Trac-Ticket-ID: 10
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: rdroms@cisco.com, dhcwg@ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: trac@tools.ietf.org
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on merlot.tools.ietf.org); SAEximRunCond expanded to false
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: [dhcwg] [dhc] #10: Response to WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-l2ra
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Reply-To: dhcwg@ietf.org
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
#10: Response to WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-l2ra ------------------------------+--------------------------------------------- Reporter: rdroms@cisco.com | Owner: Ted Lemon Type: defect | Status: new Priority: major | Milestone: Component: l2ra | Version: Severity: In WG Last Call | Keywords: ------------------------------+--------------------------------------------- These notes include Ted Lemon's comments and the authors' responses. From: Ted Lemon [Ted.Lemon at nominum.com][[BR]] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 1:57 AM[[BR]] To: Bharat Joshi[[BR]] Cc: pavan_kurapati[[BR]] Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Discussion of draft-ietf-dhc-l2ra-01.txt prior to dhc WG last call[[BR]] Sorry, the notes were on my OLPC, which I don't normally use when I'm at home, so I kept meaning to fetch them and then getting sidetracked. This is what I wrote in my notes when I reviewed it: l2ra It seems broken that the relay agents broadcast the DHCP message on all ports - that's revealing information to subscribers about each other that needn't be revealed. <Bharat>[[BR]] A normal layer 2 switch [acting as relay agen as well] may not be configured with a Up-link port or a port which leads to the router. In this case, it needs to broadcast the DHCP message on all ports. We included this in the text to show the need and importance of identifying the Up-Link port.[[BR]] </Bharat> 4.1.1 seems to go into too much detail about the actual DHCP protocol. <Bharat>[[BR]] We had started with minimal set of explanation but few internal reviewers and one external reviewer specifically asked few questions because of which we end up explaning everything here. I think this way it looks complete and does not left anything question open.[[BR]] </Bharat> 4.1.2, part 2, DHCP reply messages sounds like a protocol message. It would be better to say "in responses to unicast messages from the client".[[BR]] <Bharat>[[BR]] Yes. I can fix this.[[BR]] </Bharat> 4.2.2 seems broken. Not sure what to do here - the proposed solution is probably least likely to break badly. <Bharat>[[BR]] I did not get your point here. We have mentioned the issues due to introduction of L2 RA. Did you see any issue with the text here?[[BR]] </Bharat> Mostly the draft seems way too verbose. You have to read it closely to see all the issues that are brought out. It might be more readable/usable if as much repetition of information from the DHCP protocol spec as possible were removed. <Bharat>[[BR]] As mentioned above, this was done mostly to not leave any open question on how L2 RA handle a specific message. Let me look at it again and will try to remove some obvious things.[[BR]] </Bharat> -- Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/dhc/trac/ticket/10> dhc <http://tools.ietf.org/wg/dhc/> _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- [dhcwg] [dhc] #10: Response to WG last call on dr… dhc issue tracker
- Re: [dhcwg] [dhc] #10: Response to WG discussion … dhc issue tracker
- Re: [dhcwg] [dhc] #10: Response to WG discussion … dhc issue tracker
- Re: [dhcwg] [dhc] #10: Response to WG discussion … Bharat Joshi
- Re: [dhcwg] [dhc] #10: Response to WG discussion … dhc issue tracker