Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-topo-conf-01.txt

Andre Kostur <akostur@incognito.com> Mon, 03 March 2014 21:47 UTC

Return-Path: <akostur@incognito.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 0ECC71A01AC for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 13:47:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.579
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.579 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 XRiDSbc_9xTV for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 13:47:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na3sys010aog101.obsmtp.com (na3sys010aog101.obsmtp.com [74.125.245.70]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2BB431A0199 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 13:47:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-vc0-f175.google.com ([209.85.220.175]) (using TLSv1) by na3sys010aob101.postini.com ([74.125.244.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUxT4WGPpSaHw9GZWgrALvWLowW7bqXQn@postini.com; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 13:47:05 PST
Received: by mail-vc0-f175.google.com with SMTP id ij19so4124054vcb.6 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 13:47:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=CiQklnTysRVOzFVcjoa6sWJVvqVuMO/O4LZH6ywd3MM=; b=WKa3k6lOMo5yiBADjULBxL5sz1eoB1f0pkJpsYxGJPcrobcxWJYlUTY8k/vt3teUU5 vj8LFsERiLFZXtPTCoJ8G+FFsPJ80lM2nl9sxZquMnbI0Ae6lPrAv1gBii0TbKLrCwsZ P0xv6RqpgkqjzF07eoEy7lyCvhjQsyqeIWfY6wHAQfljqypZii9bRupWQoF0zfKH4JKY m0P1FT6+jmQYtcAeQNutuS5MHw1Z/Roj1cFIozDuOjdWjPM8wSVy4IoCRntYxmdYzRrv tqG+gDH9FyU4oa9tBe27HuWzNZrRQvlyIM5cMRfQaffubc/nltYkn23d0wTEFnaSqWN5 N5Mw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkqV8Q4y1r9/Wz6YwkY/pl49QRGKuL6IxFILBN7eKckKmoKMmvqberrU9Hq0BMr6n6c8iN4FHj787rU8GLFhPTbrzJoJ1wK8bE8d72dfMJNT1s564vi6PX5okBu3h4DB3n821qLw1M0+oNTtEb7rgn8oQgrfw==
X-Received: by 10.52.250.4 with SMTP id yy4mr77648vdc.56.1393883224221; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 13:47:04 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.52.250.4 with SMTP id yy4mr77643vdc.56.1393883224089; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 13:47:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.220.145.142 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 13:47:04 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20140214203804.24392.65857.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <20140214203804.24392.65857.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 13:47:04 -0800
Message-ID: <CAL10_BojrueqbsSZBYj4VHqN818cCcnxhn_5vT_MXen9L8GYUg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Andre Kostur <akostur@incognito.com>
To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/9r08nmGLMTx5tS1REJcMurXooKI
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-topo-conf-01.txt
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, 03 Mar 2014 21:47:11 -0000

I promised to review the document:

Section 2:

The first definition does not state what it is defining.

The other two definitions should probably be capitalized, and
separated from the definiton by a colon.  ie:

  Provider Edge Router: The provider router closest to the customer.


Figures 1 and 2 have nodes labelled as either "relay" or "router", but
I don't see a clear description as to what distinguishes a "relay"
from a "router".


Section 3, page 6:

"The details of how this works..."

This is confusing as to what "this" refers to.  DHCP in general, or
its bootstrapping function?   If it's the bootstrapping function, then
later on in the same paragraph it tries to acknowledge that a DHCP
client may have a routable IPv4 address.  In the bootstrap case we've
already stated that we've assumes that the client does not have a
routable IPv4 address.


"In either case..."

For this paragraph it is talking about obtaining an IP address, in
which case the client does not have a routable IPv4 address.


"In DHCPv6 protocol..."

First, "In *the* DHCPv6 protocol".

Second, since we are talking about server behaviours, do we need to
acknowledge the existence of the REPLY-REPL message?  A message which
the server is defined to not process?



Section 4, page 8

Figure 3 appears to be captioned as both Figure 2 and Figure 3.



Section 5:

"Relay agent can be run on a host connected to two links."   This
statement seems to suggest that the two links is a requirement
(although it doesn't actually state it as such).  Calling it out that
figure 2 happens to show a relay with 2 links is OK.


Section 6:

"Note that the relaying...."

As the end, it talks about "A response message will be sent...." from
server to relay to client.  I think it would be clearer to illustrate
that the packet travels "...from the server to relay D via router B,
and relay D will send it to the client.."

On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 12:38 PM,  <internet-drafts@ietf.org> wrote:
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
>  This draft is a work item of the Dynamic Host Configuration Working Group of the IETF.
>
>         Title           : Customizing DHCP Configuration on the Basis of Network Topology
>         Authors         : Ted Lemon
>                           Tomek Mrugalski
>         Filename        : draft-ietf-dhc-topo-conf-01.txt
>         Pages           : 14
>         Date            : 2014-02-14
>
> Abstract:
>    DHCP servers have evolved over the years to provide significant
>    functionality beyond that which is described in the DHCP base
>    specifications.  One aspect of this functionality is support for
>    context-specific configuration information.  This memo describes some
>    such features and makes recommendations as to how they can be used.
>
>
> The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-topo-conf/
>
> There's also a htmlized version available at:
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-topo-conf-01
>
> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-dhc-topo-conf-01
>
>
> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
> until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg



-- 
Andre Kostur
Distinguished Software Architect & Engineer
P: 604-678-2864
E: akostur@incognito.com
Toll-Free: 1-800-877-1856


F: 604-678-2864
VoIP: sip:864@sip.incognito.com