Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-unknown-msg-03 - Respond by Dec 2, 2013

Qi Sun <sunqi.csnet.thu@gmail.com> Mon, 02 December 2013 12:26 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 37F001AE46D for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 04:26:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, 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 amHCHUUBguav for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 04:26:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pb0-x229.google.com (mail-pb0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::229]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C05381AE470 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 04:26:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pb0-f41.google.com with SMTP id jt11so18877244pbb.14 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Dec 2013 04:26:33 -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 :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=I56s7UOENpBCgHHTxGoaQMOkdxWTrge/XTO2PHBeOAo=; b=uOWfGV4tQ4zAiRNLfbGlIUvcqTT0OMKjlpe/jrVkU9AAdKtbbhbOxPT8KK23ioiXb+ A7mmqxQLmKBU5IHAlNvqMHIMWRYtpSSp5rJo7+tDM/tM/JmVf+IUg/XlvD5m1xjDqoCD A9CIdu4Q9xXR1gKJOMRPmnepoN8NIYdWqV/agzhliTwVFxAHP9ypTeMxxCVy+cnizaF/ gm6oQReAk6wGixFSvSQsvDgi0poluGeXktqENqfiyivQI8teGrcamo89Yr3/BXn5x64U wSeBFfTmiheFcgL/bGTiqOvG48Lo/2xZrZ5oTG8S3WlpIAYl38xe8djMtjxwM3TLkZ1U EDqA==
X-Received: by 10.66.180.200 with SMTP id dq8mr68085340pac.104.1385987193569; Mon, 02 Dec 2013 04:26:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.199.122] ([166.111.68.231]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ki1sm122286419pbd.1.2013.12.02.04.26.30 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 02 Dec 2013 04:26:32 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
From: Qi Sun <sunqi.csnet.thu@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFGoqUOtzad1iNMrqs5vyy5wqewxw445Q_iAiKgYjgLvocR5EQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 20:26:28 +0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DEEB7D15-5356-4A9C-A899-9CBC6B14C326@gmail.com>
References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AD98DE0@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1ADC2A5B@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <CAFGoqUMh-xT+GsJQNHGUcisqcphAVFZXnQ6ac+GXq76wBBiyYw@mail.gmail.com> <AC25F22F-A27C-40FC-B4AF-9EA886D973A6@gmail.com> <CAFGoqUOtzad1iNMrqs5vyy5wqewxw445Q_iAiKgYjgLvocR5EQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marcin Siodelski <msiodelski@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "Bernie Volz \(volz\)" <volz@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-unknown-msg-03 - Respond by Dec 2, 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: Mon, 02 Dec 2013 12:26:39 -0000

Hi Marcin,

On 2013-12-2, at 下午5:32, Marcin Siodelski wrote:

>>> ISSUE 2
>>> In this sentence:
>>> 
>>> "In the case that a new type of relay message is sent to a relay agent
>>>  but the relay agent doesn't recognize it, the message is put into a
>>>  Relay-forward message and sent to the server."
>>> 
>>> Why "new type of relay message", not "new type of message"? I don't
>>> quite understand what the relay message is in this context.
>> 
>> [Qi] A new type of relay message targets at the relay agent. If a relay agent recognizes the message, then it should consume the message. Otherwise, the relay just sends the message to the server (in a Relay-forward message), so that the server gets the information that this relay doesn't support the new relay agent message.
>> In Bullet (b), the message doesn't take the relay agent as the target.
>> If this part isn't clear enough, we can improve it.
>> 
> 
> Thanks for this explanation. Let me rephrase my question, because I
> was asking about slightly different thing....
> 
> Would it still be ok if we had this text: "In the case that a new type
> of message is sent to a relay agent..... ", instead of "In the case
> that a new type of relay message is sent to a relay agent..."? Simply
> removed "relay". I don't understand how "relay message" is different
> from the "message" or "valid message".
> 

Thanks for your patience. What I wanted to say was that the new type of message targets at the relay agent rather than the client/server. IMHO, if remove "relay", the relationship between this paragraph and the bullet (b) might be a little confusing. 
How about this:

   In the case that a new type of message targets at a relay agent
   but the relay agent does not recognize it, ...

Would the expression be better?

Thanks, 
Qi