Re: [dhcwg] Updates on draft-ietf-dhc-slap-quadrant

Roger Marks <> Fri, 02 October 2020 21:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 50FCF3A16F9 for <>; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 14:37:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m_QUtLGvUuJY for <>; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 14:37:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BFB063A16F2 for <>; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 14:37:05 -0700 (PDT)
ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1601674617; cv=none;; s=zohoarc; b=YX100M7n1VywIwZb82tHMQ0KEM3yp1b4qnnsE5ZMKeR4LEdtwI8Pw7WBX6teAcZ2cRXKHhnnZCw+UNNLBOsXrhrViAd4c8y1iiMcLtDUPjKs+C3RscBJKJan1giM57tpL8Ct3erK/SCjy0z91HMhNuhqYevi09Ly4MG/Jks1124=
ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=zohoarc; t=1601674617; h=Content-Type:Cc:Date:From:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Message-ID:References:Subject:To; bh=Qo49YX0njtikIrF0lT1uz+6vB0i0RO7dSYF+6Eg4lzg=; b=AwN7Lf+BSnuTWOkPpS2NU48UM0abyNR7qgfuXjTquF3RlMTavrfr9MOICDOqW+Vwyl9ukXHeN3lhDR4HPJy/i26w/z5xsZKorvARGdKYzsNSyrNMxjMgxhFpMdwpY1698ks8MBZ6Owpg4N7erOOpwFXsSNYZ/1DGdaLqAcwDy4g=
ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1;; dkim=pass; spf=pass; dmarc=pass header.from=<> header.from=<>
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1601674617; s=zoho;;; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:MIME-Version:Content-Type; bh=Qo49YX0njtikIrF0lT1uz+6vB0i0RO7dSYF+6Eg4lzg=; b=mAvjD/ttKTeFQRUQxxJK2cZLq/5JShrgSJfMcgof1cEjOuIr4yNgHwcKGIYUH/2L Slzf5w4gNeZzbWaH5ANJ0kJEikkv1Wm6nhhTNFqQt3DK69719G2/df9NS0aBEm3HPKH qeccFplxQuX0t0p8bSG2y58gL/96uFo6npvxuu5o=
Received: from [] ( []) by with SMTPS id 1601674614851703.4955523433097; Fri, 2 Oct 2020 14:36:54 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2020 15:36:23 -0600
From: Roger Marks <>
To: ROBERT GROW <>, Glenn Parsons <>, =?utf-8?Q?Stanley=2C_Dorothy?= <>, "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <>
Cc: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <>, ANTONIO DE LA OLIVA DELGADO <>, dhcwg <>, "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <>, CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO <>, Timothy Winters <>
Message-ID: <dbca04d3-468a-4d37-8864-d8daaadce89e@Spark>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
X-Readdle-Message-ID: dbca04d3-468a-4d37-8864-d8daaadce89e@Spark
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="5f779d5d_3dc240fb_417"
X-ZohoMailClient: External
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 03 Oct 2020 09:29:37 -0700
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Updates on draft-ietf-dhc-slap-quadrant
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2020 21:37:08 -0000

Carlos and éric,

Since many of the core technical comments were not implemented, I personally still think that the draft is still not effective.  I'll just reiterate that the following remain puzzling to me:

(1) Why a client needs to request a specific quadrant of the local MAC address space, via Solicit (i.e., I don't understand the problem statement).
(2) Why a server is prohibited from offering, in the Advertise, an address outside the requested quadrant.
(3) Given (2), why the server that cannot meet the demand does not provide, in the Advertise, the list of quadrants in which it does have available addresses.
(4) Given (2), why the client can nevertheless (though it SHOULD NOT) Request an address in a quadrant that was not Advertised, and,
(5) Given (4), why the server can nevertheless grant that request, though it was prohibited [per (2)] from admitting that it could do so.

I understand that the editors decided not to make changes in response to the relevant prior comments because the content had already been "extensively reviewed and approved by the DHC WG and the IETF and represent therefore the IETF consensus." However, that explanation doesn't provide me with an understanding of the technical rationale, so I remain puzzled.

Please understand that these comments are from me only, not from IEEE.


On Oct 1, 2020, 1:11 AM -0600, "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <>om>, wrote:
> Roger, Robert, Glenn, and Dorothy,
> As the IETF would like to move forward with the publication of this document, may I kindly ask you to quickly review the changes ?
> My intent, as responsible Area Director for the DHC WG, is to approve and publish it in a week, Thursday 8th of October, if there is no blocking issues from the IEEE.
> Thank you in advance,
> Regards
> -éric
> Date: Thursday, 1 October 2020 at 08:51
> To: Roger Marks <>
> Cc: ROBERT GROW <>et>, Glenn Parsons <>om>, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <>om>, ANTONIO DE LA OLIVA DELGADO <>es>, Eric Vyncke <>om>, "Stanley, Dorothy" <>om>, dhcwg <>rg>, "Rob Wilton (rwilton)" <>
> Subject: Updates on draft-ietf-dhc-slap-quadrant
> Hi Roger, all,
> Thanks again for the comments on the draft. I did try to incorporate most of your comments. For the sake of completeness, I'm just summarizing below the changes I made on the draft:
> - I applied basically all the suggested edits (on abstract, introduction and terminology sections).
> - I made some minor changes to improve the motivation of the problem statement, but note that this was extensively reviewed by the DHC WG. I've modified the text regarding the IoT scenario to better explain the motivation (section 1.1.1). I've also reformulated the text in section 1.1.2 to better explain the rationale behind the recommendations for SLAP quadrant preferences in datacenter scenarios.
> - As suggested, I removed the section on Quadrant Selection Mechanisms examples (and put it in an annex).
> - I did check all your comments regarding the DHCPv6 extensions section (old section 4, now section 3). This part has been extensively reviewed and approved by the DHC WG and the IETF and represent therefore the IETF consensus. Since it refers to points related to the way the DHCPv6 protocol works, we, the editors of the DHC WG document, do not intend to apply some of your comments.
> - I added all the suggested references and made the suggested corrections.
> Note that most of the comments were addressed in draft-ietf-dhc-slap-quadrant-10 (posted early August), but I've just posted draft-ietf-dhc-slap-quadrant-11 [1] with some additional changes and small corrections.
> Thanks much for providing the comments and feedback on the draft.
> Kind regards,
> Carlos
> [1]