Re: [dhcwg] Fwd: Call for Adoption, draft-troan-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-00 as WG item

I've read through this informational document and am interested in its progress in the WG. +1 for the adoption. I believe the numbered (WAN model) CPE is a well-known and necessary case in broadband access (referred to BBF TR-177), which needs the support of multiple stateful options (eg. 1x IA_NA for its WAN interface & 1x IA_PD for the subscriber network) in DHCPv6.

Comments and questions:

1. The document sounds need more text on the scope of the status codes. (Section 3.2, section 3.6)
<quote>In Advertisement messages the Status code option with the NoAddrsAvail code is in the "global" scope.</quote> – Globe?
<quote>NoPrefixAvail is only applicable to IA_PD, and NoAddrsAvail is only applicable to IA_NA/IA_TA, it may be problematic to make this assumption for all status codes. </quote>  - What does the 'problematic' means here?
<quote>For backwards compatibility, the IA_NA status code can be kept in the global scope. </quote> - Globe?
<quote>For the IAs that the server has no binding for, it must reply using the same behaviour as for a Request message. That is with a "NoAddrsAvail" status. (As opposed to the currently specified NoBinding). </quote> - Status code change here?

2. Confirm message (section 3.4)
<quote>It is encouraged to use Renew instead of Confirm. </quote> Per RFC3633, DHCPv6 don't use Confirm & Decline message in PD process. Will we try to adopt these messages back again?

3. Decline message (section 3.5)
No text about Decline message in section 3.5 yet.

Best Regards,
Leaf

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ted Lemon
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2012 11:24 PM
To: DHC WG
Subject: [dhcwg] Fwd: Call for Adoption, draft-troan-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-00 as WG item

Reminder, we're halfway through the last call period for this document.   We've gotten a good response, so there's no need to respond if you aren't that interested, but if you are interested and haven't responded, please do. 

Begin forwarded message:

From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Subject: [dhcwg] Call for Adoption, draft-troan-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-00 as WG item
Date: April 5, 2012 1:34:46 PM EDT
To: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" <dhcwg@ietf.org>

On Apr 5, 2012, at 1:25 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> wrote:
At the Paris IETF-83 DHC WG meeting there was a lot of support for (and I believe no opposition) adopting this as a DHC WG item.

I kindly request that we adopt this document as a DHC WG work item.

This draft documents issues that have come up involving interactions between prefix delegation and regular IP address allocation in practice.   If you would like the working group to work on documenting this, please signify by responding to this message in the affirmative.   If you don't think we should work on it, please respond in the negative.   If you have no opinion, please do not respond.

We will determine consensus on Thursday, April 19. 

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg