Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements-02.txt

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 08 October 2020 07:51 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.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 C5EB23A0E2F for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 00:51:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.458
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.458 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD=1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.213, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 tv7OzqkeSq31 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 00:51:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.228]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0A2D13A0E2D for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 00:51:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 0987p3vs041674 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 09:51:03 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id EFF30203DE1 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 09:51:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.13]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF5BA203C36 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 09:51:02 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.8.35.150] (is154594.intra.cea.fr [10.8.35.150]) by muguet2-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 0987p2lZ029217 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Oct 2020 09:51:02 +0200
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
References: <160206597879.10765.16093538868178381762@ietfa.amsl.com> <7DA789F6-8C44-4DC9-A9D3-6DFE6D4F4A0E@gmx.com> <BYAPR11MB254950BDC4AAC52BAB8F0C83CF0A0@BYAPR11MB2549.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2dd5b42c-f294-9d15-4f8a-9c7532777158@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 09:51:02 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.3.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <BYAPR11MB254950BDC4AAC52BAB8F0C83CF0A0@BYAPR11MB2549.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/FlqCID0jvTl9hUwUIFojVRMI1Lg>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements-02.txt
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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, 08 Oct 2020 07:51:08 -0000


Le 07/10/2020 à 21:08, Bernie Volz (volz) a écrit :
> Hi:
> 
> Thanks Ian for the updates.
> 
> I suggest we wait a few days to see if v6ops or ipv6 working groups have any comments (as your emailed them) before I proceed with sending the document on.
> 
> 
> In reviewing, I also noticed the following minor items:
> 
> Minor nit in section 1?
> 
>     Multi-hop DHCPv6 relaying is not affected, as the requirements in
>     this document are solely applicable to the DHCP relay agent co-
>     located with the first-hop router that the DHCPv6 client requesting
>     the prefix is connected to, no changes to any subsequent relays in
>     the path are needed.
> 
> Would "so no changes" (or thus no changes) be appropriate? It just seems something is missing here. Though two free grammar checkers I used didn't seem to flag it broken (either with or without my changes).
> 
> And, in section 3.5:
> 
>     If the client loses information about a prefix that it is delegated
>     while the lease entry and associated route is still active in the
>     delegating relay, then the relay will forward traffic to the client
>     which the client will return to the relay (which is the client's
>     default gateway (learnt via an RA).  The loop will continue until
>     either the client is successfully reprovisioned via DHCP, or the
>     lease ages out in the relay.
> 
> Missing a second closing parenthesis: (which is the client's default gateway (learnt via an RA)).

I think (()) works ok in LISP and Scheme but not in English?  One would 
rather use [()]?

Alex
> 
> Please do not publish an 03 for now as these issues are very minor. We can see if other comments are raised.
> 
> - Bernie
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcwg <dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of ianfarrer@gmx.com
> Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 6:25 AM
> To: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements-02.txt
> 
> Hi
> 
> We’ve just posted an update to this draft based on the comments received in WGLC. Many thanks for your reviews and suggestions.
> 
> The major changes since -01 are:
> 
> 1. Rewritten abstract section
> 2. Provided clarification on multi-hop relays
> 3. Changed text related to handling of unknown messages by relays and removed req. G-2 that covered this.
> 4. Provided references to sections in CMTS and BNG documents
> 5. Added section about forwarding loops between clients and relays
> 6. Updated requirement R-4 to detail on avoiding the loops
> 
> I think that all of the WGLC comments are now addressed, with the exception of a question from Ole regarding implementors experience related to requirement R-4. I’ve just sent out a question on v6ops and 6man to see if we can get feedback on this.
> 
> One final question. The draft is currently called "DHCPv6 Prefix Delegating Relay” which is not particularly descriptive. We suggest changing it to ‘Requirements for DHCPv6 Prefix Delegating Relays’. Any objections to this?
> 
> Thanks,
> Ian
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>