IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] WG Adoption call for draft-gandhewar-dhc-relay-initiated-release and draft-gandhewar-dhc-v6-relay-initiated-release (Expires Oct 27, 2015)

Benoit Lourdelet <blourdel@juniper.net> Wed, 21 October 2015 14:18 UTC

Return-Path: <blourdel@juniper.net>
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 ED8891A8932 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 07:18:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 sR6F9rrWUDBD for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 07:18:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from na01-bn1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (mail-bn1on0759.outbound.protection.outlook.com [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::759]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E4F01A8931 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 07:18:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from CO1PR05MB444.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.73.140) by CO1PR05MB523.namprd05.prod.outlook.com (10.141.72.18) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.1.300.14; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:18:10 +0000
Received: from CO1PR05MB444.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.4.230]) by CO1PR05MB444.namprd05.prod.outlook.com ([169.254.4.230]) with mapi id 15.01.0300.010; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:18:10 +0000
From: Benoit Lourdelet <blourdel@juniper.net>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] WG Adoption call for draft-gandhewar-dhc-relay-initiated-release and draft-gandhewar-dhc-v6-relay-initiated-release (Expires Oct 27, 2015)
Thread-Index: AQHRB9P3vHYok5c39kWKIvWytQ1M1J52KHmA
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:18:10 +0000
Message-ID: <CAE418AE-9010-41F9-BE99-0986C20D6312@juniper.net>
References: <3ab954660ca847fc9d32d53c0cc7c959@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <CAKD1Yr1jmr-+pk4ebHkSiTaHmYTg1ABm4sLov54Z-n+S2bqqtw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr1jmr-+pk4ebHkSiTaHmYTg1ABm4sLov54Z-n+S2bqqtw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/0.0.0.150923
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=blourdel@juniper.net;
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-originating-ip: [193.110.55.12]
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; CO1PR05MB523; 5:esuIsv2e748vIRnh7QgE1dxty456D4vW7czi2H6mFAH6xQtCINxT8pcp+1QOXr9+ofqLCfPqPWqYaMlYk+BTJ/tOvrLIy4+NSZPiVgMNXx1KvFebRceP5cd/tp/MpXn0Jnuc/n+Wwbkez06fKEpnjA==; 24:bxRsrIyStWQDHbXhP82CfnTXijADbrKrKWBTxM56IwwNUNvCiwHQJVS/Gd/pNaBZaNrfq7ev6QkPKuAALLsWqiZleQIPulS1OIjhp1C7/QE=; 20:uOXmfBeWpI0KvkARBDKqKh90azq9EhXcCuZLSKJVn4oEpUlhhitQ0F73L1xS2eFIHK14ItJmvDANmVdaJrJ+Cw==
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CO1PR05MB523;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <CO1PR05MB5232B3015399811E67ABBF3DF380@CO1PR05MB523.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(95692535739014);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(601004)(2401047)(8121501046)(520078)(5005006)(3002001)(102115026); SRVR:CO1PR05MB523; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:CO1PR05MB523;
x-forefront-prvs: 073631BD3D
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(52044002)(189002)(24454002)(377454003)(199003)(66066001)(11100500001)(83716003)(64706001)(87936001)(82746002)(92566002)(5002640100001)(5007970100001)(107886002)(5004730100002)(10400500002)(122556002)(36756003)(5001960100002)(40100003)(189998001)(19580395003)(230783001)(50986999)(101416001)(76176999)(5008740100001)(83506001)(16236675004)(54356999)(2950100001)(105586002)(4001350100001)(2900100001)(99286002)(106116001)(102836002)(15975445007)(106356001)(33656002)(19617315012)(86362001)(5001920100001)(81156007)(19580405001)(97736004)(46102003)(5001770100001)(104396002)(4001430100001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CO1PR05MB523; H:CO1PR05MB444.namprd05.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None (protection.outlook.com: juniper.net does not designate permitted sender hosts)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CAE418AE901041F9BE990986C20D6312junipernet_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: juniper.net
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 21 Oct 2015 14:18:10.2752 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: bea78b3c-4cdb-4130-854a-1d193232e5f4
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CO1PR05MB523
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/Ib8KBMQZt-DRawiCcY3H1anigGU>
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Sunil Gandhewar <sgandhewar@juniper.net>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WG Adoption call for draft-gandhewar-dhc-relay-initiated-release and draft-gandhewar-dhc-v6-relay-initiated-release (Expires Oct 27, 2015)
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: <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: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:18:33 -0000

Hello Lorenzo and Bernie,

I read section 1.1  of this document  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-gandhewar-dhc-v6-relay-initiated-release-01 .
It is addressing the issue you are referring to.
Adding to that the explanations that Sunil gave to the list on this very topic, I feel that the concern is addressed.
If there is a need to create a sub section of 1.1 to signal that a particular block of text addresses "client is still configured with a non-expired lease”, I thing Sunil will agree to amend his draft.

That said, this draft addresses real day-to-day operational concerns of a number of Service Providers. We should adopt it so they can deploy a well-defined standard solution.

regards

Benoit

From: dhcwg on behalf of Lorenzo Colitti
Date: Friday, October 16, 2015 at 7:31 AM
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)"
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org<mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>"
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WG Adoption call for draft-gandhewar-dhc-relay-initiated-release and draft-gandhewar-dhc-v6-relay-initiated-release (Expires Oct 27, 2015)

On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 1:19 AM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com<mailto:volz@cisco.com>> wrote:

PLEASE NOTE: As there were many emails in support of this work recently, you do NOT have to resend your support. Based on these emails and the support shown at the IETF-93 DHC WG session, we assume the WG supports adopting these documents. So, we are primarily looking to see if anyone opposes the adoption and their objections to that adoption. Of course, if you did not indicate your support already, please feel free to do so.

This document does not address the fact that if the DHCP relay issues a release, the client is still configured with a non-expired lease and thus has no way to know that its configuration is broken.

I this we should not adopt the document until we know that this concern can be resolved.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email