Re: [dhcwg] AD review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6
Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Mon, 14 April 2014 15:55 UTC
Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 DB0811A01D9 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 08:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.173
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.173 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, 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 iGskkuQ2jdIe for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 08:55:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from toccata.fugue.com (toccata.fugue.com [204.152.186.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E3221A01BE for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 08:55:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.146.119] (unknown [70.114.139.95]) by toccata.fugue.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D72A923807EC; Mon, 14 Apr 2014 11:55:17 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
In-Reply-To: <06B8F2CA-A5D5-4F00-8A00-E0D8C99CF976@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Apr 2014 10:55:17 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <C718C42B-CFF6-4731-9B6D-17694A95D92D@fugue.com>
References: <B36DAF7C-EDA6-427E-B918-FB8F4D3ED6F5@fugue.com> <06B8F2CA-A5D5-4F00-8A00-E0D8C99CF976@gmail.com>
To: Qi Sun <sunqi.csnet.thu@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/OWYpyMQkGsJRM2XtwuNBBSmuEe4
Cc: DHC WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6@tools.ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] AD review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6
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 Apr 2014 15:55:24 -0000
The only reason a client would ever unicast to a relay would be if the Server Override Suboption (RFC5107) were in use. This can't be used in the case of DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6 because there isn't necessarily an IPv4 address for the relay agent, nor an IPv4 transport the client could use to reach it. I think mentioning this is unnecessary and confusing. I can't think of any situation where there would be confusion as to whether the server override option could be used with DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6. You could forbid using the option if you think this needs to be addressed. So I think the right thing to do is remove text, not change text. Your new text is more confusing than the old text, but if the only reason you thought to mention this was to address the RFC5107/RFC5010 use case, I think you can skip it.