Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-client-link-layer-addr-opt-01.txt

Andre Kostur <akostur@incognito.com> Tue, 14 August 2012 15:10 UTC

Return-Path: <akostur@incognito.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 A06CA21F84EA for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:10:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.874
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.874 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.103, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 jvuyV5PXlK+2 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:10:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na3sys010aog108.obsmtp.com (na3sys010aog108.obsmtp.com [74.125.245.84]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id BD5B921F8647 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:10:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-gh0-f176.google.com ([209.85.160.176]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys010aob108.postini.com ([74.125.244.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUCpqbPUpxjR90kqYvfOaq89uHFyXGXPF@postini.com; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:10:37 PDT
Received: by ghbz10 with SMTP id z10so674772ghb.35 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:10:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:x-gm-message-state; bh=uM9n4CBfz0YRv13+NebMWhAlD3weL49aCvy3QXJLBIQ=; b=HmMb7cj5wjPyls5nlv+8Fb696T3NdjghOKitGHWtp89a3g0Xi/UXKygsTIMP08OOha jH8HWbDaqRsBrwupdrEAYpGfxUi4qv4bqJVddN/PXjUoAx8g7shctIOhsU0r6GjLGbYH k/iUzsO4R+IK91mYcFx1glAx2hlAnzUySSYykWFY6L+ef00WoqAfrt8/re7MstXnjfTV hMVMyCZgHYKI9SbZzwkIWMab2hm826FIp/CUBJtChvKsIyafEcvGFoHvzMdU99uk5WLL Fl6ZYuK8pXVBqbIo+mTRkg/UkPDZXyGfj7Rn6g0aJYmOvd+ZNgXLreQfllcGx0jOgebY 3jPg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.42.114.16 with SMTP id e16mr12980374icq.57.1344957036241; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:10:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.11.72 with HTTP; Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:10:36 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <20120814023301.12939.59518.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20120814023301.12939.59518.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 08:10:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CAL10_BppEa6q648F1m0FddMoxgg9nAR+M0VhvrwnT3MS=WZDXw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andre Kostur <akostur@incognito.com>
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnFifQruVHtfsdHSU2WZHczdXZdu5gHINQeqNWdJOMhiq1Sm7Z0DQ56WBqQA4HEjEmgb8Zx
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-client-link-layer-addr-opt-01.txt
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: Tue, 14 Aug 2012 15:10:38 -0000

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 7:33 PM, <internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
>  This draft is a work item of the Dynamic Host Configuration Working Group
> of the IETF.
>
>         Title           : Client Link-layer Address Option in DHCPv6
>         Author(s)       : Gaurav Halwasia
>                           Shwetha Bhandari
>                           Wojciech Dec
>         Filename        :
> draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-client-link-layer-addr-opt-01.txt
>         Pages           : 6
>         Date            : 2012-08-13


I think section 2, paragraph 1 is somewhat superfluous (does it really
matter how DHCPv4 carries the link-layer address, or merely that it
does carry it in every packet?).  I think that it would be clearer to
start with paragraph 2, talking about how we wish to associate a
DHCPv6 lease with a DHCPv4 lease instead of focusing on the link-layer
address first, then talking about why it's a problem.

--
Andre Kostur