IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-00

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Fri, 07 September 2012 15:09 UTC

Return-Path: <volz@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 9CC0B21F85B1 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 08:09:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8giEcurA3NNm for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 08:09:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.86.73]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11F9321F85AF for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 08:09:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2230; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1347030553; x=1348240153; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=fiB2f7EgkmsfBHKNRhi2IdwFEm80b6C3G4SHcIU7c7o=; b=iv+hHpE9nP6mrg7HNKNaPL/9B+sdB0mJFwCtD1Pm/vDYnGcKCXmycenp WttUjfBuEXBBZOlrdOXrdP9Xil4MbniuV5UkA33seAGUYgt5vuI5JfY2/ CC3E87AGIYU5iSelPLb8o4yZghWVorn3ViH3oQ+HbPlGuKuzMXbV6Bj4O c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EAL0MSlCtJV2Y/2dsb2JhbABFuzmBB4IgAQEBBAEBAQ8BJzQXBAIBCBEEAQELFAkHJwsUCQgCBAESCBMHh24LmyegSQSLEoVUYAOkEoFngmQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.80,387,1344211200"; d="scan'208";a="119319111"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Sep 2012 15:09:12 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com [173.37.183.89]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q87F9CWs013426 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Fri, 7 Sep 2012 15:09:12 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.159]) by xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com ([173.37.183.89]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 10:09:11 -0500
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>, dhc WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-00
Thread-Index: AQHNdqZP3dOUnDeDJkKs3MsN2OTAhpd/Jdsw
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 15:09:10 +0000
Message-ID: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E0F4F83D1@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
References: <0AE8374B-0E04-48FF-B71D-2EE8FAAC9ED1@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <0AE8374B-0E04-48FF-B71D-2EE8FAAC9ED1@nominum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.86.244.254]
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19168.005
x-tm-as-result: No--35.890500-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-00
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 15:09:13 -0000

Chairs:

Where does this Last Call stand? August 24th has passed ...

I do know Ted wants to see an I-D regarding the multiple provisioning domains but I am not sure whether that would block draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-00 until available. I just haven't had much time to work on that ID -- the concept is fairly simple in that servers would have to include the provisioning domain identifier in their responses and clients would have to make decisions based on the provisioning identifier - Advertisements that have the same provisioning identifier are selected from pretty much as clients do today without this support and if multiple provisioning identifiers are present, a client can select one Advertisement from each set and fork separate transactions (when and why a client may want to do this need to be worked out - such as is it only done if one domain provides addresses and another prefixes, or should the client do it always). It likely is also appropriate to allow a user to control which provisioning domains are to be used (much like Wifi network selections). There may also be some authentication information that could be used (much like the Wifi shared secret).

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ted Lemon
Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 11:15 PM
To: dhc WG
Subject: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-00

The authors have requested a working group last call.   The document describes some problems that exist in the way DHCP clients handle multiple stateful options, and proposes a solution that unifies the client state machine to accommodate these issues.

This document could use additional review, so please take the time to read it over and comment on it if you have any comments.   If you are in favor of advancing the document, please say so.   If you oppose advancing it, please say so, and say why.   We will evaluate the consensus based on these responses on August 24.

Thanks!

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email