IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] FW: New VersionNotification for draft-yeh-dhc-dhcpv6-authorization-opt-00.txt

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Wed, 28 March 2012 11:28 UTC

Return-Path: <volz@cisco.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 B47B421F88E6 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 04:28:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.219
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.083, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TzM0LkfoRMnP for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 04:28:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 179FC21F88E1 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 04:28:22 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=volz@cisco.com; l=1026; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1332934102; x=1334143702; h=subject:references:content-transfer-encoding:from: in-reply-to:message-id:date:to:cc:mime-version; bh=0U047vfb5hY7kgyjgoZTlymWYfUEFg0FNNZgLPhHTmk=; b=ceW0e/Y72jP1CCpvhG/IxJDbruhpR9IUvlYMVL8IbBbWa7cwOJRkOJ5l b0vAWRwcTDKRzZDNlpljfH6tANxbVLB6q0/z5nSSrv+mU2i2DxJuBQ0pH 6VaCoN5WYE7jbwOscxLLFoHDi+rCm8YpLxBnSqtD6+JUkPYTT0wnNbgja c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AlkIAI70ck+tJXG8/2dsb2JhbABFuGsCgQeCCQEBAQMBAQEBDwEnNAsFCwIBCEYnJwkBAQQTIodjBQubV58XBJAvYwSVYY5FgWiDAw
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,661,1325462400"; d="scan'208";a="70047166"
Received: from rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com ([173.37.113.188]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Mar 2012 11:28:21 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com [72.163.62.200]) by rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q2SBSLIT004882; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 11:28:21 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-101.cisco.com ([72.163.62.143]) by xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 28 Mar 2012 06:28:21 -0500
Received: from 72.163.62.204 ([72.163.62.204]) by XMB-RCD-101.cisco.com ([72.163.62.143]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 11:28:20 +0000
References: <E1CE3E6E6D4E1C438B0ADC9FFFA345EA218D0B71@SZXEML510-MBX.china.huawei.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307472D0C15@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
In-Reply-To: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307472D0C15@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
thread-topic: [dhcwg] FW: New VersionNotification for draft-yeh-dhc-dhcpv6-authorization-opt-00.txt
thread-index: Ac0M1eEoKlNxKNt5SKW9QoqceM239g==
Message-ID: <B5E4EA0D-48CA-4667-AC35-C7D254304F2F@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 07:28:23 -0400
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Mar 2012 11:28:21.0438 (UTC) FILETIME=[E17F0DE0:01CD0CD5]
Cc: dhc WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] FW: New VersionNotification for draft-yeh-dhc-dhcpv6-authorization-opt-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 11:28:22 -0000

Regard Ted's comment:

*** There is no reason to use either suboptions or RADIUS options.   The
right thing to do is simply define a DHCP option to carry each RADIUS attribute
that you think the DHCP server might need.   Sub-options are common in DHCPv4
because there are only 256 option codes possible, but in DHCPv6 this is not a
problem, and the additional complexity introduced by suboptions is undesirable.


I fully agree. I had always thought it good if we had a v6 equivalent of RFC 4014. Jusy a container for comminicating a subset of the RADIUS attributes would work very well.

- Bernie


Sent from my iPad

On Mar 28, 2012, at 6:49 AM, "Ted Lemon" <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> wrote:

> I had a chance to give the draft a thorough read yesterday; I've attached comments and proposed edits.
> <draft-yeh-dhc-dhcpv6-authorization-opt-00.txt>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email