Re: [dhcwg] RFC3315bis - Naming

Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com> Mon, 03 March 2014 09:34 UTC

Return-Path: <jiangsheng@huawei.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 9438C1A0D89 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 01:34:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.748
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, 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 Q2x0py56n6Cd for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 01:34:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B55F31A0B78 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 01:34:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml203-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg02-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BBR51743; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 09:34:31 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML405-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) by lhreml203-edg.huawei.com (172.18.7.221) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 09:34:04 +0000
Received: from NKGEML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.32) by lhreml405-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 09:34:28 +0000
Received: from NKGEML512-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.206]) by nkgeml401-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.32]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 17:34:22 +0800
From: Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>, DHC WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] RFC3315bis - Naming
Thread-Index: AQHPNsMGEs3mwxMdMkaWuMD+ShPyk5rPGUS/
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 09:34:22 +0000
Message-ID: <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B923AE1D70D@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <AF7019CB-8EEB-4E43-A5B0-4863D763B0E2@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <AF7019CB-8EEB-4E43-A5B0-4863D763B0E2@employees.org>
Accept-Language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: en-GB
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.47.76.251]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/LnNv_nqo39mQMP8zlLAgs_lV5aA
Cc: "Ralph Droms \(rdroms\)" <rdroms@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] RFC3315bis - Naming
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, 03 Mar 2014 09:34:37 -0000

Agree with Ole. Additional explanation text may be used to clarify that DHCPv6 PD server may be a dedicated standalone function without other standard DHCPv6 function.

Sheng
________________________________________
From: dhcwg [dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of Ole Troan [otroan@employees.org]
Sent: 03 March 2014 17:28
To: DHC WG
Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms)
Subject: [dhcwg] RFC3315bis - Naming

just a perspective on naming and at the risk of bike shedding.

rfc3315 uses client, relay, server
rfc3633 requesting router and delegating router

rfc3633 was written with the expectation that there was no relay, this was for the purpose of route injection.
actual deployments use relays, and there isn't any special function done on the delegating router, and no need to have a special name for it.

in 3315bis with prefix delegation being integrated fully into the main DHCP RFC, I don't see a new to maintain the separate terms. just use client, relay and server.

cheers,
Ole