Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to Internet Standard

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Wed, 11 September 2013 11:53 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.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 78C6511E81A3 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 04:53:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.424
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.424 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=3.825, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 gs-GEaICbkMv for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 04:52:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91B7F21F9D87 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 04:52:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id r8BBqox5018102 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 11 Sep 2013 13:52:50 +0200
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r8BBqoEh011273; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 13:52:50 +0200 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (is010446-4.intra.cea.fr [10.8.33.116]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id r8BBqcU9014630; Wed, 11 Sep 2013 13:52:50 +0200
Message-ID: <52305986.2010503@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 13:52:38 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E18654EE6@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <5212694A.6000807@gmail.com> <CAOv0Pi87akb24PaYJKPzK3+cfCr1DHDu-h2sF3HwTxBvzZC9+w@mail.gmail.com> <C2A9B74C-A52C-4605-824E-40E3E9C190E0@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <C2A9B74C-A52C-4605-824E-40E3E9C190E0@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Advancing RFC 3315 and RFC 3633 to Internet Standard
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: Wed, 11 Sep 2013 11:53:07 -0000

Le 11/09/2013 13:46, Ralph Droms a écrit :
> Alex...
>
> On Sep 11, 2013, at 4:19 AM 9/11/13, Alexandru Petrescu
> <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> Please allow me to re-issue this, now in relationship with Leaf's
>> draft.
>>
>>
>> 2013/8/19 Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com> On
>> 12.08.2013 21:21, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
>>> During the Berlin IETF-87 DHC WG session, it was suggested that
>>> we initiate a standards action request to move RFC 3315 (and RFC
>>> 3633), which are presently Proposed Standards, to Internet
>>> Standard. While we plan to work on a 3315bis which would merge
>>> the work, it was pointed out by several people (include our Area
>>> Director) that there is technically no need to wait for that to
>>> advance the standards.
>>>
>>> The requirements for advancement are outlined in RFC 2026 and RFC
>>> 6410 (which removed Draft Standard).
>>>
>>> Per RFC 6410:
>>>
>>> The criteria are:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> (2) There are no errata against the specification that would
>>> cause a new implementation to fail to interoperate with deployed
>>> ones.
>>
>> In RFC 3315 DHCPv6-PD there is a questionable use of the term
>> 'provider edge router.' in a section describing the behaviour of
>> the Relay agent:
>>
>> 14.  Relay agent behavior
>>
>> A relay agent forwards messages containing Prefix Delegation
>> options in the same way as described in section 20, "Relay Agent
>> Behavior" of RFC 3315.
>>
>> If a delegating router communicates with a requesting router
>> through a relay agent, the delegating router may need a protocol or
>> other out-of-band communication to add routing information for
>> delegated prefixes into the provider edge router.
>>
>> I wonder whether the Authors actually meant 'Relay Agent' by that
>> 'provider edge router'. Because otherwise the term doesn't appear
>> elsewhere in the document.
>
> (Assuming you meant RFC3633) Yes, s/provider edge router/relay
> agent/

Yes, I meant RFC3633, and yes s/provider edge router/relay agent.

That would make for an errata that one could suggest in the errata site?

>> Also, did the authors of RFC3315 meant that a new protocol is
>> needed between Server and Relay Agent?  Or did they mean that
>> inserting a routing table should happen by that 'out-of-band' means
>> (and not 'out-of-band communication')?
>
> Not speaking for Ole, I meant that some other means, which might be a
> protocol, manual configuration, etc., is needed to add routing
> information into the relay agent.

In that sense I agree with it.  It is thus a problem that is already 
explicit in this RFC.

Alex

>
> - Ralph
>
>>
>> I am asking this because I explore the possibilities of formulating
>> a problem statement about why DHCPv6-PD breaks when assigning a
>> prefix through a Relay.
>>
>> Alex _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing
>> list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>
>
>