IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-06.txt

神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> Mon, 14 July 2014 18:06 UTC

Return-Path: <jinmei.tatuya@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 54E601A0011 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 11:06:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, 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 JbCpQ8h5X6ou for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 11:06:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x230.google.com (mail-we0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B1FE1A000F for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 11:06:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f176.google.com with SMTP id q58so1066906wes.35 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 11:06:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject :from:to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=T6xu2emvZE/8GtHsWvbOsabZ+lxra9ut9hWuabfFyZI=; b=glp4vw1ECK4DBezTd7CDzB3B2kvnjsC1Q40qUF05G1u+pjh+TDDD0nloyZCw+ywlwO zRz0UaalUlwcg+9IblCj1lJglcMZ/awFUYfX9z0+w7O/VbMJ13VZZ+hD3uvIDYE3nQ2r LFxaD9gwwEziWv52seCxWt2iX3a26mMAajepqzHgNDiJHtR/6/B70gZ5zAcxe9ZKrMbn ItqOSBzU0rotIbjehdwIaamMBukPtjA/LO8YEW1HHGf9Jf6zU16ypypM+bq2ycf6cL28 4vHc/fwdKYf1bP34BvbXvWMQ/dgJwCCU1P2YGHB8lJ9MRN5GxYzKPZ2iziJrhXJRyOzS FwoQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.133.1 with SMTP id oy1mr21006308wjb.87.1405361163914; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 11:06:03 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: jinmei.tatuya@gmail.com
Received: by 10.194.108.166 with HTTP; Mon, 14 Jul 2014 11:06:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1B5F6A45@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
References: <20140630163351.4191.69719.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1B5E03D1@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <CAF+sHxFiMa_wo_=JrJuRQfnOKJwKbcfxio4CDqJ=UmEjCM-A4A@mail.gmail.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1B5F6A45@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 11:06:03 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: ROvbIL9NNwrhfa-gJhVVyO5oSWY
Message-ID: <CAJE_bqfVvb-RkGgK6+uezrjqNvP3jgd10zBKXX0EnGZ5Pwgqtw@mail.gmail.com>
From: 神明達哉 <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/KYULSy-k5HNY88jZhFM6ZqzOvtA
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-06.txt
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: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 18:06:11 -0000

At Mon, 14 Jul 2014 13:02:54 +0000,
"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> wrote:

> This is “should”. That allows for cases where a client may want to use multiple sessions to different servers. This might well be the case if multiple provisioning domains were in play – see section 4.8. But this is an  area of potential future work …

My understanding of the question is that it's more related to the
undocumented operational assumption I raised in a prior comment:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg15657.html

>> - Similarly, it seems to be assumed that when a server could provide
>>  bindings for IA1 and IA2:
>>  + the server can provide bindings for both IA1 and IA2, or,
>>  + it can provide a binding for neither IA1 nor IA2.

If my understanding is correct, what I think should be done for this
document is:

- get a consensus on the validity of this assumption.  (Personally, I
  think it's reasonable for the case of IA_NA + IA_PD; I'm not so sure
  about the general IA1 and IA2)
- assuming we have the consensus, explicitly clarify the operational
  assumption on which this document is based, and also clarify what's
  excluded from the scope of considerations.  Perhaps the assumption
  was so obvious to the authors, but the fact we have this discussion
  now would suggest that it's not that trivial to others and worth
  documenting explicitly.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email