IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-host-gen-id-02

"Gaurav Halwasia (ghalwasi)" <ghalwasi@cisco.com> Mon, 13 August 2012 04:20 UTC

Return-Path: <ghalwasi@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 5AB7F21F84E4 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 21:20:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 wASfCTBgxDKF for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 21:20:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 18DAB21F84EF for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 21:20:47 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=ghalwasi@cisco.com; l=2134; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1344831647; x=1346041247; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=zJQ0ZlE60GTu3H7mEN88e41SBfoa71aH2bpFQNyP30M=; b=PBCPUONFy9wEmG0n724Bk3UUZPVHq9VQBPFV0ePKxFlXeD9fh/mALyc4 l9jxIgWCYnP7Ut61auw131p/OQHSRN1AeJ0GzIkazAGwuhEVoM8GY/dK4 uA8E0kHZsNEOpsOg3aPNTfI5ikO2solttmZjimxQaeMdHeiEhstgLwxZ7 w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av8EABuAKFCtJXG9/2dsb2JhbABEuXiBB4IgAQEBBAEBAQ8BCh00ARYEAgEIEQQBAQsUCQcnCxQJCAIEARIIGodrC5cOnywEixKFUWADo3WBZoJf
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.77,757,1336348800"; d="scan'208";a="110872369"
Received: from rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com ([173.37.113.189]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 13 Aug 2012 04:20:46 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com [173.37.183.83]) by rcdn-core2-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q7D4KkMB006191 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 13 Aug 2012 04:20:46 GMT
Received: from xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.1.246]) by xhc-rcd-x09.cisco.com ([173.37.183.83]) with mapi id 14.02.0298.004; Sun, 12 Aug 2012 23:20:46 -0500
From: "Gaurav Halwasia (ghalwasi)" <ghalwasi@cisco.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>, dhc WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-host-gen-id-02
Thread-Index: AQHNePgJ6EjzoGF6j0KwHUjTOoQDGZdXH58g
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 04:20:45 +0000
Message-ID: <90903C21C73202418A48BFBE80AEE5EB0D028F@xmb-aln-x06.cisco.com>
References: <2DCA645F-CDDF-4311-8417-3A9771AD3F71@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <2DCA645F-CDDF-4311-8417-3A9771AD3F71@nominum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.142.104.48]
x-tm-as-product-ver: SMEX-10.2.0.1135-7.000.1014-19108.001
x-tm-as-result: No--41.521900-8.000000-31
x-tm-as-user-approved-sender: No
x-tm-as-user-blocked-sender: No
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-host-gen-id-02
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: Mon, 13 Aug 2012 04:20:48 -0000

I like the idea but I do have few comments:-.

1.) Abstract does not seems clear to me. 
This document introduce a procedure for configuring hosts' IPv6
   address which the prefix is assigned from a DHCPv6 server through
   DHCPv6 protocol while the interface identifiers are independently
   generated by the hosts.

2.) Section 1 . Introduction. Change "host-genarated" to "host-generated"
3.) Section 1 . Introduction. Change "separats" to "separates"
4.) Section 1 . Introduction. Change "ingerface identifiers" to "interface identifiers"
5.) Section 4.  This section talks about the new IA_PA option but does not explicitly say that this option needs to be inserted in SOLICIT message.

6.) As this procedure is indeed "state less" from the DHCPv6 perspective, why don't we want to use "Information-Request" message instead of SOLICIT from the host.?

7.) What should the host do after timers expire.? And is the DHCPv6 RECONFIGURE message supported for this option type. I think this should be clarified in the draft.

 
Thanks,
Gaurav

-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ted Lemon
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 7:35 AM
To: dhc WG
Subject: [MARKETING] [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-host-gen-id-02

The authors have requested a working group last call for this draft.   The draft provides a mechanism whereby the DHCP server can indicate to the DHCP client which prefix it should use for autoconfiguration, for instance for CGA address generation.   This draft has been hanging around for a while, and could definitely use more eyes on it.   Please take the time to review it; if you think it's a good idea, please indicate your support for advancing the draft.   If you think it's a bad idea, please indicate that you do not support advancing it.   If you have comments, they would be very much appreciated.

We will determine consensus on August 27.

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status