[dhcwg] Follow-up from IETF-93 (Prague) - DHCPv6 bis Issues (Reply procesisng) - Respond by 8/24/2015

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Mon, 10 August 2015 15:36 UTC

Return-Path: <volz@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27C291B36FB for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 08:36:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id oo2KE6KHEyIR for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 08:36:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 666C21B36FA for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 08:36:31 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=10745; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1439220991; x=1440430591; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=Y8CJpCxTYVK+omY91BdSHYCqRRSSH4ifSXfnwXuhym8=; b=hDeHA27eVegoO3Si5v/boAcOkk+lfqZZaIKoR9JttFItQ4t5NAi8mK2n /efTXey1mfixBuGvh9VyxZQITciX88AQtjZB5MsSIl3ZnEo13Zx9Va5uf vjHfHn/i/QTfHof3G6CJM8JpAw1cQPL/CM44V8hr6UiF8FR7hpHNz12pF c=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.15,646,1432598400"; d="scan'208,217"; a="19286628"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Aug 2015 15:36:30 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-012.cisco.com (xch-aln-012.cisco.com []) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t7AFaULc010239 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:36:30 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-012.cisco.com ( by XCH-ALN-012.cisco.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 10:36:29 -0500
Received: from xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com ( by xch-aln-012.cisco.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 10:36:29 -0500
Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([]) by xhc-rcd-x03.cisco.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 10:36:29 -0500
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Follow-up from IETF-93 (Prague) - DHCPv6 bis Issues (Reply procesisng) - Respond by 8/24/2015
Thread-Index: AdDTggxULMOvsRHPSZCpkNJCBRpUPg==
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:36:28 +0000
Message-ID: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1CC2E96F@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1CC2E96Fxmbrcdx04ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/PiY_JgJ27HiWVF-fzHCGt4A5fOE>
Subject: [dhcwg] Follow-up from IETF-93 (Prague) - DHCPv6 bis Issues (Reply procesisng) - Respond by 8/24/2015
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: <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: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:36:33 -0000


As a follow-up from the IETF-93 (Prague) DHC WG session and the DHCPv6 bis Issues (see https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/slides-93-dhc-7.pdf):

For slide #6, Reply Processing (#140), we want to confirm the WG consensus to adopt the proposal to update the client's Reply processing to process what is in the Reply from the server before acting on any status code option:

Proposal: Restructure the Reply message processing to say that the client processes everything but the top level status code and then checks the status code and deals with it
-      Process any IA_* options
-      Process any SOL_MAX_RT/INFO_MAX_RT options
-      ...

Please respond if you do not agree with this proposal and please indicate why.

The rationale for this proposal is to assure that the client processes other information the server returned before acting on the status code.

-          Bernie (for draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis coauthors)