Re: [dhcwg] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-unknown-msg

Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Mon, 03 February 2014 15:41 UTC

Return-Path: <brian@innovationslab.net>
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 6EBA21A0167 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 07:41:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] 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 9D9GRawLQ_Mc for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 07:41:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FB391A015C for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 07:41:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com [206.197.161.158]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A537880F3; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 07:41:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 10252516.rudm1.ra.johnshopkins.edu (addr16212925014.ippl.jhmi.edu [162.129.250.14]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5BD81368158; Mon, 3 Feb 2014 07:41:23 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52EFB8AA.8030506@innovationslab.net>
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 10:41:30 -0500
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>, Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <52EBC3EA.1020104@innovationslab.net> <CFA19E62-0F9A-4358-AB7C-E4A910BF4874@nominum.com> <52EFA4E8.2040404@innovationslab.net> <D4ECE269-E79C-41A7-9AD1-82E04AB02432@nominum.com> <52EFAD21.6040901@innovationslab.net> <CA3A730C-A2A9-42F2-A94C-E44747E0C87B@gmail.com> <AC1BEE6C-9C9D-431F-A180-630052B34A90@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <AC1BEE6C-9C9D-431F-A180-630052B34A90@nominum.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Q08hAP69FB4EElJlbQnD5tpnm8Hwo7TVQ"
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-unknown-msg@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-unknown-msg
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: Mon, 03 Feb 2014 15:41:25 -0000


On 2/3/14 10:38 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2014, at 10:35 AM, Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> I have a less laissez-faire view, here, which is that we ought to
>> disallow explicitly the deployment of a client and relay agent on
>> the same device, with a recommendation that a specification for
>> such a deployment needs to be written if the use case is realized.
> 
> That sounds like the opposite of a laissez-faire view.   The only

Umm... He said "less laissez-faire". :) He's not wielding Thor's hammer
though.

> problem with this proposal is that there's no reason to think that
> anyone who needs to would read it.   This sounds like more of a thing
> to do in 3315bis.
> 

I would be fine with that guidance being in 3315bis., but recall that I
am also not a DHCP expert.

Regards,
Brian