Re: [dhcwg] Adoption Call for draft-fkhp-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements

Hi Med,

No problem with updating the wording, but suggest that the word ‘aggregated’ is removed, as this excludes the
case of ‘advertise every individual delegated’ prefix as soon as you learn it’. However, the ‘based on’ in the wording
includes the aggregation case as well:

old:
The mechanisms for a relay to inject aggregated routes on its network-facing interface
based on prefixes learnt via DHCP-PD from a server are out of scope of the document. 

new:
The mechanisms for a relay to inject routes, on its network-facing interface
based on prefixes learnt from a server via DHCP-PD are out of scope of the document.

Thanks,
Ian

> On 9. Jan 2020, at 11:41, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ian,
>  
> That is a good start but I prefer if the text is more explicit, e.g.: 
>  
> OLD:
>  
>    The mechanisms for the redistribution of remote routes learnt via
>    DHCP PD is out of scope of the document.  
>  
> NEW:
>  
>    The mechanisms for a relay to inject aggregated routes on its network-facing interface
>    based on prefixes learnt via DHCP-PD from a server are out of scope of the document. 
>  
> Thank you. 
>  
> Cheers,
> Med
>  
> De : ianfarrer@gmx.com [mailto:ianfarrer@gmx.com] 
> Envoyé : jeudi 9 janvier 2020 10:52
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed TGI/OLN
> Cc : Bernie Volz (volz); dhcwg@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [dhcwg] Adoption Call for draft-fkhp-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements - Respond by Jan 14, 2020
>  
> Hi Med,
>  
> The intro has the following text. Doesn’t this cover it?
>  
>    The mechanisms for the redistribution of remote routes learnt via
>    DHCP PD is out of scope of the document.  Multi-hop relaying is also
>    not considered as the functionality is solely required by a DHCP
>    relay agent that is co-located with the first-hop router that the
>    DHCPv6 client requesting the prefix is connected to.
>  
> Thanks,
> Ian
>  
> 
> 
> On 9. Jan 2020, at 10:35, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com <mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>> <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com <mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>> wrote:
>  
> Hi Bernie, all,
>  
> I support.
>  
> For the routing part, the draft may clarify that it focuses on the client-facing interface and not the one covered, e.g., in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt-03 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt-03>.
>                                                      
> Cheers,
> Med
>  
> De : dhcwg [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org <mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org>] De la part de Bernie Volz (volz)
> Envoyé : dimanche 29 décembre 2019 17:03
> À : dhcwg@ietf.org <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
> Objet : [dhcwg] Adoption Call for draft-fkhp-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements - Respond by Jan 14, 2020
>  
> Hello:
>  
> As follow up from the IETF-106 DHC WG meeting, we are initiating the WG call for adoption onhttps://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-fkhp-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements/ <https://datatracker.ietf..org/doc/draft-fkhp-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements/> (DHCPv6 Prefix Delegating Relay). This document was presented at IETF-106 – see https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-delegating-relay-00 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/slides-106-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-delegating-relay-00>.
>  
> This starts the call for Adoption of this document. Please respond by January 14, 2020.
>  
> Thanks in advance for your consideration of whether the WG should or should not adopt this document as a work item.
>  
> And, Happy New Year!
>  
> Tomek & Bernie
>  
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>