Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements - respond by August 17th, 2020

otroan@employees.org Mon, 21 September 2020 13:19 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 2C54C3A0EC6; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 06:19:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=unavailable 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 dRVKJRy4tx_d; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 06:19:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5B3D3A11E2; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 06:18:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (unknown [IPv6:2a01:79d:53aa:d30:443a:2f3f:8e75:e662]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1D0DB4E11B9E; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 13:18:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C1003DD9903; Mon, 21 Sep 2020 15:18:25 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
From: otroan@employees.org
In-Reply-To: <BN7PR11MB254773DBDF86E4F54C6C499ACF3A0@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 15:18:24 +0200
Cc: Timothy Winters <tim@qacafe.com>, "draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements@ietf.org>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <60243B91-2F21-450C-92B6-A2132EF467AE@employees.org>
References: <BN7PR11MB254783295780CA79CDA1FAB3CF4F0@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <BN7PR11MB254779A3599EFC466605CD92CF450@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <BN7PR11MB25477ED8552DF78132E2F089CF5F0@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <DFF9367A-5D78-4795-988A-FCD37F3C6377@employees.org> <BN7PR11MB25472678D6ACAB82912141A6CF5C0@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <C503DF9C-7798-43A3-9E7F-7D7E09B0D98B@gmx.com> <BN7PR11MB25475DCDA3E215609BF3D8F5CF260@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <263B0965-AF60-4008-B55C-AF9803EB419F@gmx.com> <BN7PR11MB25473F7EBE67E1B51DE7AD46CF230@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <A2A9F390-5B5A-4DAC-9E8A-7F6BA51F7ECB@employees.org> <7358EA97-7E61-45CB-8D32-3AF405B60768@gmx.com> <D7610587-E894-46D9-B3FC-18EF2B90D788@employees.org> <9E774175-356D-4E72-A3BF-3ACCA41A14FD@gmx.com> <BN7PR11MB2547BFE20F174B974D0442F5CF3E0@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <CANFmOtnp2zY9CLQDDjhOmkOiZGMvC2goz4pYhjetErFSpeooWQ@mail.gmail.com> <804782AC-6400-4ECA-B8D5-77F205E77327@cisco.com> <CAJgLMKvwPuVDAmJPApGOeSkq-YYU6X7rtNO960V75udquRf-gA@mail.gmail.com> <BN7PR11MB254773DBDF86E4F54C6C499ACF3A0@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/JW-od67RL4IQjvgpL-89OBcOjv0>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements - respond by August 17th, 2020
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: Mon, 21 Sep 2020 13:19:12 -0000

> If that’s indeed the situation to be addressed, adding a section 3.5 or similar to document this issue would be really useful.
>  
> If Ole’s happy with the most recent proposed R-4 requirement text and this new detail is added, it would address my concerns.

And I would also be happy if we could have some implementors chime in with a "we are happy and able to implement this requirement".

Best regards,
Ole