Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol-02 - Respond by September 12, 2016

Kim Kinnear <kkinnear@cisco.com> Thu, 01 September 2016 15:05 UTC

Return-Path: <kkinnear@cisco.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 7D88112D155 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 08:05:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.069
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.069 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 V1QWfdzi7oOW for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 08:05:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A97C112DA25 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 08:05:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=3523; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1472742317; x=1473951917; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=FRhiHK+qlGm8Y3CGSG9Mi/dRKP7z1nIvGh5CUSBKlBQ=; b=fNBe1pQ/BgzpY22/24Mt3Lqh0+vCYwYHPMYQgzTkMJ7EqW3LCZlh8tf5 8QH8VvZorDBV8xH87YZPdfBMeLUVEAw2CAxKcKALYtppqtUOTKBe5WG/5 P0CcGPWrLJqu1b8JwK6TTRBI3ElIDTq3Y0OiQYOspOpLiT0oCw0wjnAJd Q=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.30,268,1470700800"; d="scan'208";a="316734465"
Received: from rcdn-core-4.cisco.com ([173.37.93.155]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 01 Sep 2016 15:05:17 +0000
Received: from dhcp-161-44-67-116.cisco.com (dhcp-161-44-67-116.cisco.com [161.44.67.116]) (authenticated bits=0) by rcdn-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u81F5FKt032405 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 1 Sep 2016 15:05:16 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
From: Kim Kinnear <kkinnear@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <C0BF9575-5FDF-43EE-B2DB-24BD1EB7A54D@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2016 11:05:15 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <CD2B761A-898A-4208-8C69-CD5A109313B6@cisco.com>
References: <258822dc0efd4a3daa19eb64086b5de7@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <B56D48DE-9048-416C-B86F-C56F35D1073D@cisco.com> <E659735F-18E0-4432-B574-BC573FBB20B9@cisco.com> <C0BF9575-5FDF-43EE-B2DB-24BD1EB7A54D@cisco.com>
To: "Naiming Shen (naiming)" <naiming@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
X-Authenticated-User: kkinnear
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/7aUpRY65mq49lhWUyuheM1WlAWg>
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>, Kim Kinnear <kkinnear@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol-02 - Respond by September 12, 2016
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 01 Sep 2016 15:05:27 -0000

> On Sep 1, 2016, at 10:26 AM, Naiming Shen (naiming) <naiming@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> Kim,
> 
> Thanks for the clarification. Since the two servers using TCP to
> communicate with each other and with explicit user provisioning,
> I’m wondering this ‘on the same network’ term is needed here.

	No, I think that is isn't needed here, I agree.  I
	will fix that in the next edit.

	Thanks.

	By the way, could you *please* either say that you think
	this document should or should not move forward?

	Thanks -- Kim

> 
> thanks.
> - Naiming
> 
>> On Sep 1, 2016, at 6:33 AM, Kim Kinnear (kkinnear) <kkinnear@cisco.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Naiming,
>> 
>> Sure, we can clarify that.  The "on the same network" comment was not,
>> actually, about where the clients connect at all.  The "on the same
>> network" phrase was *trying* say that the two DHCPv6 servers could
>> communicate with each other.  It is assumed that some (most) of the
>> DHCPv6 clients will be communicating with the DHCPv6 server through
>> DHCPv6 relays.
>> 
>> We will fix this along with other comments that come in during WGLC.
>> 
>> If you think this document should be moved forward, please send a
>> comment saying that.  If not, please send a comment saying *that* and
>> why you don't think it should move forward.
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> Kim
>> 
>>> On Aug 31, 2016, at 8:31 PM, Naiming Shen (naiming) <naiming@cisco.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi authors,
>>> 
>>> I have a simple comment on the document. In the section of abstract,
>>> it mentioned the two servers ‘on the same network’. This is obvious true
>>> for the case of serving DHCPv6 request directly from the clients on the
>>> same network. I’m just wondering how does this work if the server is remote
>>> and through some DHCPv6 relays. Can we put some text to clarrify this.
>>> 
>>> thanks.
>>> - Naiming
>>> 
>>>> On Aug 21, 2016, at 4:18 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi all,
>>>> 
>>>> This message starts the DHC Working Group Last Call to advance draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol-02, DHCPv6 Failover Protocol. This document’s intended status is Proposed Standard. At present, there is no IPR file against this document.
>>>> 
>>>> Please send your comments by September 12, 2016. If you do not feel this  document should advance, please state your reasons why.
>>>> 
>>>> Note: We are trying another WGLC based on the discussion regarding this document led by Tomek at the Berlin (IETF-96) meeting and the feedback from those in attendance (seehttps://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/minutes/minutes-96-dhc).
>>>> 
>>>> Bernie Volz is the assigned shepherd (Tomek is a co-author).
>>>> 
>>>> - Tomek & Bernie
>>>> 
>>>> PS: I decided to make this a 3 week WGLC because some may still be on summer holiday and because of Labor Day (September 5) in the United States. And, some may be need a break from reviewing draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-05 for the just ending WGLC (August 22nd).
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> dhcwg mailing list
>>>> dhcwg@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dhcwg mailing list
>>> dhcwg@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>> 
>