Re: [dhcwg] [HOKEY] Fw: draft-ietf-hokey-ldn-discovery WGLC ends
Qin Wu <sunseawq@huawei.com> Tue, 14 September 2010 15:47 UTC
Return-Path: <sunseawq@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73A983A6839; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 08:47:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.495
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.495 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ezsMPJfyaBLz; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 08:47:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from szxga05-in.huawei.com (unknown [119.145.14.67]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 236323A6870; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 08:47:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from huawei.com (szxga05-in [172.24.2.49]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0L8Q003BQUJSYS@szxga05-in.huawei.com>; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 23:47:52 +0800 (CST)
Received: from huawei.com ([172.24.2.119]) by szxga05-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTP id <0L8Q00DZWUJQQ1@szxga05-in.huawei.com>; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 23:47:52 +0800 (CST)
Received: from C863D63E94E7457 ([220.114.251.3]) by szxml02-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 2.14 (built Aug 8 2006)) with ESMTPA id <0L8Q00ILDUJQDR@szxml02-in.huawei.com>; Tue, 14 Sep 2010 23:47:50 +0800 (CST)
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 23:50:10 +0800
From: Qin Wu <sunseawq@huawei.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Message-id: <021001cb5424$837ec430$a100a8c0@C863D63E94E7457>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3198
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138
Content-type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
References: <E053FEB527FC4AC99C9A8039E29D32E8@china.huawei.com> <C55D2EEF-6C50-43AA-B9E0-E514F5DCBD74@nominum.com> <003f01cb4376$4d05f8b0$e711ea10$@net> <B05483B4-23CC-4D1B-BE75-8F425F580EB9@nominum.com> <043701cb5310$ea1afb10$4f548a0a@china.huawei.com> <13D698C9-9906-447C-B06D-B1C0DD1A30E2@nominum.com>
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org, hokey@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [HOKEY] Fw: draft-ietf-hokey-ldn-discovery WGLC ends
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 15:47:39 -0000
Hi, ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ted Lemon" <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> To: "Qin Wu" <sunseawq@huawei.com> Cc: "Glen Zorn" <gwz@net-zen.net>; <dhcwg@ietf.org>; <hokey@ietf.org> Sent: Monday, September 13, 2010 9:53 PM Subject: Re: [HOKEY] [dhcwg] Fw: draft-ietf-hokey-ldn-discovery WGLC ends On Sep 13, 2010, at 2:57 AM, Qin Wu wrote: > Sorry for late reply. > It think draft-ietf-hokey-ldn-discovery intend to address two different cases: > case 1: DHCP server have the information, DHCP Client request information directly from DHCP server > case 2: DHCP server didn't have the information, but DHCP relay have. DHCP Relay provides information to the client through DHCP server. > Therefore it seems reasonable to have one common option to address both cases in the inter-authenticator handover scenario. I can't tell from this response whether you are agreeing to use the mechanism described in the relay-supplied options draft or not. Could you clarify? [Qin]: For the case 1, we don't need relay-supplied options since client can request informtaion directly from server using LDN option defined in draft-ietf-hokey-ldn-discovery. For the case 2, we have two options: (a) Relay include information in the LDN option defined in draft-ietf-hokey-ldn-discovery and forward to the server (b) Relay Encapsulate LDN option into relay-supplied options and forward relay-supplied options to the server. I think both options works in the case 2. but comparing with their difference, relay-supplied options is more generic and reusable. BTW: If you look at the history of draft-ietf-hokey-ldn-discovery, one revelant draft to draft-ietf-hokey-ldn-discovery(i.e., http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft- wang-dhc-ldn-option-00) was discussed in DHC WG early at IETF 74 and has the similar idea to relay-supplied options.
- [dhcwg] Fw: draft-ietf-hokey-ldn-discovery WGLC e… Tina TSOU
- Re: [dhcwg] Fw: draft-ietf-hokey-ldn-discovery WG… Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] [HOKEY] Fw: draft-ietf-hokey-ldn-disc… Glen Zorn
- Re: [dhcwg] [HOKEY] Fw: draft-ietf-hokey-ldn-disc… Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] [HOKEY] Fw: draft-ietf-hokey-ldn-disc… Qin Wu
- Re: [dhcwg] [HOKEY] Fw: draft-ietf-hokey-ldn-disc… Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] [HOKEY] Fw: draft-ietf-hokey-ldn-disc… Qin Wu