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

Marcin Siodelski <msiodelski@gmail.com> Mon, 02 December 2013 09:32 UTC

Return-Path: <msiodelski@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 AD37E1AE082 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 01:32:46 -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 J1hbTGCSq9QG for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 01:32:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-x233.google.com (mail-ie0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52C041AE07D for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 01:32:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f179.google.com with SMTP id x13so20782826ief.10 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Dec 2013 01:32:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=MBUGxQzeFwvY7fghP8/jYSCD3KSOplF0mKHc8YI2w7Q=; b=prSiFTsodqEvUyV1NhtHO2snoeA2jPbGEVn7Zz6ngjhUWLVew00g6qRzcJ+Y4emDbl th2WIsNhf8YLdzz1ChE4y361Qu9vneM1uPDBiggBkyMVRqfWIGrLsC4ZtBoBMUttvphr 0/5BoK2M5sIUi8846cqa6nuX3vS9r/c7x/uzw3SDa3piA8nBDHtz+Rsl6Dail8QZFizz WS75KFN9xmpC0M9MMiaM49OknDVVp7l28LtM2uREqZdGRSfT9GXQhIfh98/vbuSoH/pC xugDaZgpRZX6duWeZFUv/xdkJHeBA9BWRA/OHoHyHijYTQ41ez1g8um9auHm6VN0Ky/E RIjA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.42.148.200 with SMTP id s8mr233364icv.67.1385976763176; Mon, 02 Dec 2013 01:32:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.50.32.33 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 01:32:43 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <AC25F22F-A27C-40FC-B4AF-9EA886D973A6@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>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 10:32:43 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFGoqUOtzad1iNMrqs5vyy5wqewxw445Q_iAiKgYjgLvocR5EQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Marcin Siodelski <msiodelski@gmail.com>
To: Qi Sun <sunqi.csnet.thu@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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 09:32:46 -0000

>> 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,
Marcin