[dhcwg] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-unknown-msg

Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Fri, 31 January 2014 15:40 UTC

Return-Path: <brian@innovationslab.net>
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 A11B51A020C for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 07:40:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yyishpw4XlvJ for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 07:40:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 126B61A038E for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 07:40:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach-high.fuaim.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83079880D1; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 07:40:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from 102524131.rudm1.ra.johnshopkins.edu (addr16212925014.ippl.jhmi.edu []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 169F91368142; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 07:40:37 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52EBC3EA.1020104@innovationslab.net>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 10:40:26 -0500
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-unknown-msg@tools.ietf.org, dhcwg@ietf.org, Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="f6LMgNDFSSWVLTCHprHVJIm9Q6qF0VJBV"
Subject: [dhcwg] AD Evaluation: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-unknown-msg
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: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 15:40:43 -0000

     I have done my AD Evaluation of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-unknown-msg
(since Ted is listed as a co-author).  I only have a few points of
discussion on this document before we move it along in the publication
process.  I am by no means a DHCP expert, so let me know if I have gone
off in the weeds...

1. I would like to see a little more clarity in the purpose of this
document.  It does a good job clarifying what a relay agent should do
with existing messages, but I think it would be useful to spell out that
is document is also dictating how future documents that define new DHCP
messages should specify relay behavior.

2. In section 4.1, the text talks about targeting a message based on its
message type.  To me, that suggests that a relay must know about all
DHCP message types.  I thought (feel free to correct me) that relay
agents were mostly stateless and would forward all messages not
addressed to them to the configured DHCP server.  This assumes that all
Relay-Reply messages are addressed to the relay directly.

3. After having an exchange with Ralph Droms, I want to ask about
messages from servers to clients.  If those messages are *not* in a
Relay-Reply message, but are received by a relay, should those messages
be dropped?  If a server->client message is forwarded to a server by the
relay, should it be dropped by the server?

4. Is there a need to specifically discuss the behavior of single
devices that have both a relay agent and a client running at the same time?

5. Also from Ralph... Could section 5 simply be written as "A client or
server MUST silently discard any received DHCPv6 message with an unknown
message type."?