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, 1 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>
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
Precedence: list


> On Sep 1, 2016, at 10:26 AM, Naiming Shen (naiming) =
<naiming@cisco.com> wrote:
>=20
>=20
> Kim,
>=20
> Thanks for the clarification. Since the two servers using TCP to
> communicate with each other and with explicit user provisioning,
> I=E2=80=99m wondering this =E2=80=98on the same network=E2=80=99 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

>=20
> thanks.
> - Naiming
>=20
>> On Sep 1, 2016, at 6:33 AM, Kim Kinnear (kkinnear) =
<kkinnear@cisco.com> wrote:
>>=20
>> Naiming,
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> We will fix this along with other comments that come in during WGLC.
>>=20
>> 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.
>>=20
>> Thanks!
>>=20
>> Kim
>>=20
>>> On Aug 31, 2016, at 8:31 PM, Naiming Shen (naiming) =
<naiming@cisco.com> wrote:
>>>=20
>>>=20
>>> Hi authors,
>>>=20
>>> I have a simple comment on the document. In the section of abstract,
>>> it mentioned the two servers =E2=80=98on the same network=E2=80=99. =
This is obvious true
>>> for the case of serving DHCPv6 request directly from the clients on =
the
>>> same network. I=E2=80=99m just wondering how does this work if the =
server is remote
>>> and through some DHCPv6 relays. Can we put some text to clarrify =
this.
>>>=20
>>> thanks.
>>> - Naiming
>>>=20
>>>> On Aug 21, 2016, at 4:18 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> =
wrote:
>>>>=20
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>=20
>>>> This message starts the DHC Working Group Last Call to advance =
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol-02, DHCPv6 Failover Protocol. =
This document=E2=80=99s intended status is Proposed Standard. At =
present, there is no IPR file against this document.
>>>>=20
>>>> Please send your comments by September 12, 2016. If you do not feel =
this  document should advance, please state your reasons why.
>>>>=20
>>>> 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).
>>>>=20
>>>> Bernie Volz is the assigned shepherd (Tomek is a co-author).
>>>>=20
>>>> - Tomek & Bernie
>>>>=20
>>>> 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).
>>>>=20
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> dhcwg mailing list
>>>> dhcwg@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>>>=20
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dhcwg mailing list
>>> dhcwg@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>>=20
>=20