Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 - Respond by Dec 9, 2013

Qi Sun <sunqi.csnet.thu@gmail.com> Fri, 13 December 2013 03:15 UTC

Return-Path: <sunqi.csnet.thu@gmail.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 AC9E51AE0AD for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 19:15:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_55=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_57=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 TFfNEpSMeMWr for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 19:15:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pd0-x22a.google.com (mail-pd0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F8E81AE03A for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 19:15:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pd0-f170.google.com with SMTP id g10so1646721pdj.29 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 19:15:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=Dcb1vvmjHPpJDPWy8gIa6xpVzWfj3Br5JLbm8AVfGqA=; b=RByGNZPKyr9T4Ks/oxKHFMaAuGtY8Htzn/6nElwWrLnt6nT8plrb3PsZ+0QzrM6H4v r6Xtaku/vcCVMAZyicpiKsnIOItt/rvQ/NTdQf/ZL00czEt5WJI1GSLuzFwhXYe/n1Gi JbZEs4eVt5Ze14VROCNJDjyCezR5pypMqBytsxugtjjacwLyIfgkuSevYjzYDGAoSmyW RGkn+D/beneqnnG5wxw8QZqIvK1vs6oMCEPMOlm3+96KXsiIT9h5XwGQeHAsK0xb39KP 6tF9O5EeYP/A6O/nbF5kPMR2OWO25a4w3MccxMqebRhwS/eTChQn515G58g1Rqb1f2t6 q9dg==
X-Received: by 10.66.147.193 with SMTP id tm1mr423717pab.56.1386904530498; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 19:15:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.199.122] ([166.111.68.231]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id oa3sm907344pbb.15.2013.12.12.19.15.27 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 12 Dec 2013 19:15:29 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
From: Qi Sun <sunqi.csnet.thu@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1ADE2293@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 11:15:23 +0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <46A68A10-2A09-47DD-BE80-0A30C76320B8@gmail.com>
References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1ADA99A8@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1ADD590C@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <CE4E8958-57AA-4D87-AA80-F2B12FF1A698@gmail.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1ADDF49A@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <F0A0E7AD-387E-4F9C-8200-4297E79BA566@gmail.com> <0676A81F-E5B1-423C-8233-A5B143908A3A@nominum.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1ADE2293@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>, Marcin Siodelski <msiodelski@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>, "draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 - Respond by Dec 9, 2013
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: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 03:15:37 -0000

Hi, 

I would prefer DHCPV4-QUERY and DHCPV4-RESPONSE. IMHO, the DHCPV4-REQUEST/REPLY might cause confusion with DHCPREQUEST in RFC2131. 


Best Regards,
Qi


On 2013-12-13, at 上午1:01, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:

> I wonder whether DHCPV4REQUEST and DHCPV4REPLY (perhaps with a hyphen) may actually be better choices for the V6 messages. While the underlying protocol is BOOTP, that name is somewhat misleading and most everything now uses DHCP[v4] -- yes, I know that I was likely the source of those original message names.
> 
> I'm not sure using QUERY/RESPONSE adds much value.
> 
> But again, I really have no good answer here and was not trying to promote one name over the other - I was just asking the WG the question as to whether these are good message names or whether we wanted to change them now, before we are stuck with them 'forever'.
> 
> It is a minor issue (as what goes over the wire is really a message type code), but it does make a difference in tools (i.e., packet decoders), logs, and in source code.
> 
> - Bernie
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Lemon [mailto:ted.lemon@nominum.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, December 12, 2013 9:49 AM
> To: Qi Sun
> Cc: Bernie Volz (volz); dhcwg@ietf.org; draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6@tools.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 - Respond by Dec 9, 2013
> 
> On Dec 12, 2013, at 7:39 AM, Qi Sun <sunqi.csnet.thu@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm OK with your suggestion (using the  BOOTPREQUESTV6 and BOOTPREPLYV6).
> 
> The only reason to use BOOTREQUESTv6 and BOOTREPLYv6 is the similarity between that name and the name of the BOOTP packet that DHCPv4 rides in.   If you are going to change the name, you might as well call it DHCPv4QUERY and DHCPv4RESPONSE or something.   Using the BOOTP name allows you to avoid confusion between DHCPREQUEST/DHCPREPLY and DHCPv4REQUEST/DHCPv4REPLY, but you could use QUERY/RESPONSE to avoid that just as well.
> 
> Anyway, I don't think BOOTPREQUESTv6 makes a whole lot of sense.
> 
>