IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dhc-relay-port-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Thu, 30 November 2017 00:41 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 665FB12773A for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 16:41:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 3pQ12-58Jjoz for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 16:41:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt0-x234.google.com (mail-qt0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49798126D73 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 16:41:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt0-x234.google.com with SMTP id a16so6818697qtj.3 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 16:41:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=b1MzB9rISM3yi5fcigKSecnzKWEIECD9eH9tHxWjFgU=; b=Xf9wef3PWFrSp8KlvyR/CtborF+gb6lMBbjzFYT18NgO7LGLaNb/8pDI9OQKM+fCSm gk0piilvGsbmMYDH4lDUQsNs2CRCaz2yjQJJvThpeXd7xKhKbBbKlmr/8iSjb9RTiDev Czs6VgobwIFPxi/fBrWyRVgAIK/BXnlKnZK7HDZmQFph/qP0UCfXl3n259x3ml9xY1QP GqpSsirTbwvuwftzl+whOeANXzaiW9emirlC/aR3innKonLXalWecHVrmEM3jap++AO2 3xmcfkoZPZXBVXf+Z6GIUVBinYILne8Xlj0ocqnjgo1FLHfLraj0JbX73DI6C6YGwD9S 8+/w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=b1MzB9rISM3yi5fcigKSecnzKWEIECD9eH9tHxWjFgU=; b=Sqo0pwLn50Knrb1Kyuc8dD0zLglursjKiYTMO4rqmgDW0Ewc+ZO0QOf3IWOwrzQelj N1qJJxJS4khS41LLgZRp2lDdR3zrYUQLiq99oD/WR74KYjN9aw4VG4ynSUbIeLR1Z1Jp nfjLiboC3/X1ncSXGof5UMof/WWbTlq+aPMsvvZrPxyUFLgB4FxlvLtN7lBVU2R/TyaY aDtZowTDf63B2CfnNFh9wPAzmrdiIcS7yDDgoYt+nfYDyKeRXodYFBfiewQuyZ7O2x42 QibdiTx+VWG0zPLPak1uY/z/nc9z2ikuNhhSqbJL+4HQPN/NloM0KTRnBX7HvBgiU5Zx 9F6A==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKGB3mJakMkLNe9JJ6G3BcJ1vuw+HYyHN0R9kG5R06wT3Adk0w8/ekvZ eQCn37Pdf9gFjCWtR0rTQUAgtG5w8r4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMayBPIRi7S5TF2mn8iWBFA03AfSIKw5GK7yqGzxMLzrmNiQGoUEtA1LpOJI+7JHuhligG3epA==
X-Received: by 10.200.4.154 with SMTP id s26mr1206474qtg.156.1512002487437; Wed, 29 Nov 2017 16:41:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cavall.lan (c-24-60-163-103.hsd1.nh.comcast.net. [24.60.163.103]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z22sm2198539qta.81.2017.11.29.16.41.26 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 29 Nov 2017 16:41:26 -0800 (PST)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <1F317916-E0C1-4EF5-A9C8-448FF02D3525@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_C832AF75-CDA1-4114-BC3F-EB4F6C41F773"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.1 \(3445.4.7\))
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2017 19:41:25 -0500
In-Reply-To: <4364B55F-0BC5-42B9-965D-FEF9D9AED9C5@nostrum.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dhc-relay-port@ietf.org, dhcwg@ietf.org, dhc-chairs@ietf.org
To: Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com>
References: <151198969282.31355.16877065112899804068.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <200CE2CC-D6D1-40BA-843A-1193DFFDEE74@fugue.com> <4364B55F-0BC5-42B9-965D-FEF9D9AED9C5@nostrum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.4.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/D5A5e8w2tqnEPlde5T5YVDXdKhM>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dhc-relay-port-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 30 Nov 2017 00:41:31 -0000

On Nov 29, 2017, at 7:15 PM, Ben Campbell <ben@nostrum.com> wrote:
> Otherwise, if this is only intended for a specific context, it would help to have some language in the draft describing that scope. As written, I don’t see why a reader that was not involved in the creation of the draft would not assume it to be general purpose.

Suppose they did.   What would go wrong?

> I’m almost convinced by the “same administrative domain” (although I think my “customer owned” cable modem has a relay, and it’s sort of fuzzy who’s administrative it belongs to :-) ). I think it would help to strengthen the language in 5.4 to make it clear what will break if people get this wrong.

Why would the owner or operator of the cable modem configure it to use a different DHCP port?

That said, I agree that this shouldn't be stated as updates to documents it's not updating.   This is an extension, not an update.   So sections 3.1 and 3.2 should really be stated as additional behavior for conforming implementations, not as updates to the base documents.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email