Re: [dhcwg] [Int-dir] Intdir early review of draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-10

Zhen Cao <zhencao.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 02 November 2017 03:30 UTC

Return-Path: <zhencao.ietf@gmail.com>
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 6AF4A13F843; Wed, 1 Nov 2017 20:30:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1 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, GB_AFFORDABLE=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 P06Rev-XI3NW; Wed, 1 Nov 2017 20:30:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x235.google.com (mail-vk0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B751C13F418; Wed, 1 Nov 2017 20:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x235.google.com with SMTP id x65so2735150vkx.1; Wed, 01 Nov 2017 20:30:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pXOw+4Uqi6ETPPK9U3k/sT7pL+6pMIiyLGqr93kd0m8=; b=O8C36P1lX6bZQ/SdyKS4y8punv7tpUr45DCC7nV5H5Lo4XaLUBQicIv2KgTq4PnHNt ZhcYJAx8QdX5IjmKB225BBX132TBcJ1IxtjNSEeBuQnsIcyJU8QTzXq99HRIk0rfA5Vi 6XKAosJxGrY1eW4btN/eXfqA7pBQ5Wbluht2Ffqr5+Qg8wjsuitZdFbneumx61L1o8hU XfydIcL5VTG2Ryg4R0w+UjDWBc/9T+1c1bOayPVu877QzKrW47ML+wDHUsA/OpNsqgr7 SCn+g0S3X5XPGrYUcCK6cjOAkHtxziS0vAcE1FSRrQZpuHDd8ZEiJfHyItvM0QD6tjiU rtPw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pXOw+4Uqi6ETPPK9U3k/sT7pL+6pMIiyLGqr93kd0m8=; b=cSYtG6V+vUk1P4QS/Oz4mwnjK//w+kKgmpTibB9AfYDy0DTnj5r1JrdXVssaxtVf4W TGyvBZ4DNVoEg30nCTE+944Z6alGQBypB+E6hBbfoMgOYR3gp8/fAAFOT9I9KaPpXWYT kejLawPbG3oSU+wJmSwm4jnLvQ1PF4Gn3YLptR72XW9m8KwiNpez5rS7klVfsSqfmhzg ARdMDe1tbWCqbe7V9iB5GyT9hbh2FIEK0H1EzEF+0P6duy+C1SJ3kgyg0BMoA+pL1LrV 501SQrYeu4Xy/+b96RWxLO5xcaf5cg6h5JiirqqhPUScp+IYEMoF5ZHp1LYolsJu/56d LEsA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMCzsaVGyfihT1VwcPw+Lx23FBef64MOc7dBd6DnNzCOQGCe+D1afk/8 ypulp2YMnLjJWJR83HS+8eX/q81jiP1hKF3GmCA=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+Th8aEdcDAh/sEokSu62Tg/rMOEz38CHmDIJV+yE+Fwzr3k8E6hZJS4eGANwN1/Krp43i3NChuRJLh9dRYLS4E=
X-Received: by 10.31.70.133 with SMTP id t127mr1787975vka.100.1509593402646; Wed, 01 Nov 2017 20:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.176.84.143 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Nov 2017 20:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1cfea94b1690409595b243f014083bf1@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com>
References: <150952203714.25993.17333137226492207681@ietfa.amsl.com> <1cfea94b1690409595b243f014083bf1@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com>
From: Zhen Cao <zhencao.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2017 11:30:02 +0800
Message-ID: <CAFxP68xsGG1K4Q0qfQL6VG4Qmth+GVv7qdDWcTjP20K9y9tehg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Cc: "int-dir@ietf.org" <int-dir@ietf.org>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis.all@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/LpnEsvH9Ou0TkktsxlmUzlk-EDw>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [Int-dir] Intdir early review of draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-10
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 02 Nov 2017 03:30:08 -0000

Hi Bernie,

> First, thanks for the Int-Dir review.
My pleasure as always.

>
> Regarding your comment, the cases where both MRC and MRD are zero is for a Solicit and Information-Request. And, for those particular cases, the client should probably retransmit "forever" at a hopefully low rate (SOL_MAX_RT and INF_MAX_RT are 3600 seconds*) to locate a  DHCP server. This of course depends on the RA M & O bits (indicating a DHCP server is available) or the manual configuration of the client (to explicitly run DHCP).

Then depending on this information, it is up to you to see if there is
a need of an affordable better description than the current text.

Cheers,
zhen

>
> * - RFC 3315 used 120 seconds for these values, but that was updated by RFC 7083.
>
> - Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Int-dir [mailto:int-dir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Zhen Cao
> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 3:41 AM
> To: int-dir@ietf.org
> Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis.all@ietf.org
> Subject: [Int-dir] Intdir early review of draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-10
>
> Reviewer: Zhen Cao
> Review result: Ready with Issues
>
> I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for this draft. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherds should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details of the INT directorate, see <http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate.html>.
>
> This version is quite ready to go, with a small issue that I would like to
> discussion:
>
> In Section. 15 (Reliability of Client Initiated Message Exchanges), I strongly recommend that implementation MUST NOT set both MRC or MRD to ZERO, which attaches a possible risk that the client continues to send this message without
> a stop.    So I would like to propose the following change:
>
> s/
> " If both MRC and MRD are zero, the client continues to transmit the
>    message until it receives a response."
> /
> "The client must be informed with a limit of its retransmission behavior, and MUST NOT set both MRC and MRD to zero"
>
> -zhen
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Int-dir mailing list
> Int-dir@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-dir