Re: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 - respond by Jan 27, 2014

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <> Tue, 28 January 2014 18:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2477B1A02E8 for <>; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 10:17:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.036
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.036 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.535, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id X-NO99Fk1m4Z for <>; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 10:17:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5B5ED1A0240 for <>; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 10:17:41 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=3639; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1390933059; x=1392142659; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=qlUwh4JFzBU5ZEB2n7E4YGgw3TOfdPUKAVmFao/dAGQ=; b=ctxMwRNnkUUNPI9GLra9/uSdsCx5W133tDLj0F8uh++erK4BgM7dlPXH /iVIM7clGzjEdUJtlJ33TkHsah32HU2a9DMx+0UYHY3erFEiEzVTyx/Av WaRVQPHgxtn0N3q+LJY0m8/jrkqqwwmuKJ1PhT71ci3yykvOfxoJ80D0W w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,737,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="300069417"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 28 Jan 2014 18:17:38 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s0SIHcNV000607 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:17:38 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 28 Jan 2014 12:17:38 -0600
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <>
To: Simon Perreault <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 - respond by Jan 27, 2014
Thread-Index: Ac8QcQDsRAhiIYjCTp6frUYpiNZ3DQANxxuAAAvHSGAC33vhkA==
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:17:36 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 - respond by Jan 27, 2014
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:17:43 -0000

Oops ... I realize I never indicated my support of this document for adoption. I do support its adoption.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg [] On Behalf Of Bernie Volz (volz)
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 11:10 AM
To: Simon Perreault;
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 - respond by Jan 27, 2014


Once adopted, we can request changes.

I too think it would be better to just provide information about the current state of a host's addresses rather than report transition states (transitions would trigger a Reconfigure-request). If there is a good reason for reporting state changes, perhaps both should be reported (i.e., flags and state change - or old vs new state)? That way the server can use either set to do its processing?

Also, as mentioned in the document, the option should be allowed to be sent by the host directly (though of course, it will be far quicker to get this rolled out if the relay agents are modified rather than all hosts).

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg [] On Behalf Of Simon Perreault
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 10:41 AM
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 - respond by Jan 27, 2014

In favour. I commented on earlier revisions.

Comments for future revisions:

- First, I think it would be better protocol design to make OPTION_HOST_CONNECTIVITY contain a bit field, where IPv4 and IPv6 would be represented by bits that could be toggled independently. Other bits would be reserved for future use.

- Second, is it necessary for the relay to track and report *transitions*? Isn't it better to make the relay report the current state only, and let the DHCP server figure out the transition based on the previous state?

- Third, if we keep working with transitions, what is the initial state of a new host? If I plug in a host and it sends an RA, does it go from "no stack" to "IPv6-only"? Reporting the current state would deal with this easily, whereas reporting transitions would require a new set of messages I suppose.


Le 2014-01-13 10:12, Bernie Volz (volz) a écrit :
> Hi all:
> A call for adoption is being initiated at the request of the authors 
> to determine whether there is WG consensus to adopt
> draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 as a DHC WG item. Please state 
> whether or not you're in favor of the adoption by replying to this 
> mail. If you are not in favor, please also state your objections in your response.
> This adoption call will complete on January  27, 2014.
> The HTML version of the document can be viewed at 
> If there is consensus to adopt as a WG document, we will confirm with 
> Ted to get it on the charter.
> Regards,
> Tomek & Bernie
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list

DTN made easy, lean, and smart -->
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        -->
STUN/TURN server               -->
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg mailing list