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

Marcin Siodelski <msiodelski@gmail.com> Fri, 13 December 2013 03:46 UTC

Return-Path: <msiodelski@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 B1C4E1AE10D for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 19:46:43 -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 DmN0Pjm8dniF for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 19:46:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-x231.google.com (mail-ie0-x231.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::231]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 955F61AE107 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 19:46:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f177.google.com with SMTP id tp5so2094785ieb.36 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 19:46:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=6Y3UcXCINcSEIt+3K39ub5fcAQ9uKrJbL7PFwHKuCKE=; b=0dsZC5BhZCjSC88liX0wyayCJnqEM5GRvPN7Q1EYge7oiH39eu3B2QUscZSKBRTcp9 XNH9AuB1oza/50WM3leOxprIwZtJOYZoo29HlOOBvscFQpkZtbG2SPJioIMBIINGoRDW 88mi8M+cUHRYZ4X5IawqNBahvzzci0Ka4jp+q0rn7wNrtUFY/5pku68d/CeK9sgIJf1p Q2vLxdyHev1V9iAYT3iQF0bH3jcMl72EaOq5pespCbKaZQgRAcCQH5rhNQS330/gnt5i qi1rOiKiXU7SN4SkE1PJbL9mNOg2FQXu0XnD3JlqsIUNtT0LHHUpKiUlzMZ6BKiBlsIY mSOw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.43.117.131 with SMTP id fm3mr211176icc.33.1386906396378; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 19:46:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.50.32.33 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 19:46:36 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <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> <46A68A10-2A09-47DD-BE80-0A30C76320B8@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 04:46:36 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFGoqUMt3KaP3Oeq77FVS5KR7AfC2VDFhtAcycW-d7CSQ1xr1Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Marcin Siodelski <msiodelski@gmail.com>
To: Qi Sun <sunqi.csnet.thu@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "Bernie Volz \(volz\)" <volz@cisco.com>, "draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6@tools.ietf.org>, Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
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 03:46:43 -0000

That is fine by me, Qi.

Marcin

On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Qi Sun <sunqi.csnet.thu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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.
>>
>>
>