[dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-triggered-reconfigure: discussion points
<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Thu, 13 September 2012 06:07 UTC
Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.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 148F121E8047 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 23:07:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.153
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.153 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.094, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id W1xVSpXD9nAW for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 23:07:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias92.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.92]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C5D121E8042 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Sep 2012 23:07:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omfedm05.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.1]) by omfedm09.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 31BB12DC42D for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 08:07:17 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PUEXCH71.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.33]) by omfedm05.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 1638735C11C for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 08:07:17 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.9]) by PUEXCH71.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.33]) with mapi; Thu, 13 Sep 2012 08:07:11 +0200
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 08:07:10 +0200
Thread-Topic: draft-ietf-dhc-triggered-reconfigure: discussion points
Thread-Index: Ac2RdgKbWGMEY7pxQDWB7H+aM3m9Vw==
Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E5A10C549@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
Accept-Language: fr-FR
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: fr-FR
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E5A10C549PUEXCB1Bnante_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2012.9.13.53319
Subject: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-triggered-reconfigure: discussion points
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: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 06:07:19 -0000
Dear all,
I would like to prepare -01 which solves two open issues we had in -00:
Discussion #1: Should the document specify the behavior of
intermediate relay agents if any?
Discussion #2: What to do when all clients bound to the same
relay agent are impacted by a configuration change? Should the
document indicate the relay MUST include Relay-ID Option
(RFC5460<http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5460>)?
Any opinion on how to proceed with these two points?
Thanks.
Cheers,
Med
- [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-triggered-reconfigure: dis… mohamed.boucadair