Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements - respond by August 17th, 2020

otroan@employees.org Tue, 18 August 2020 07:24 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 49DC83A1809 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 00:24:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 k-_CLZBhbfFz for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 00:24:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clarinet.employees.org (clarinet.employees.org [198.137.202.74]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1FC9F3A180A for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 00:24:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from astfgl.hanazo.no (77.16.57.153.tmi.telenormobil.no [77.16.57.153]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clarinet.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 371444E11B48; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 07:24:31 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by astfgl.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4841C3A64D74; Tue, 18 Aug 2020 09:24:25 +0200 (CEST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
From: otroan@employees.org
In-Reply-To: <BN7PR11MB25477ED8552DF78132E2F089CF5F0@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 09:24:24 +0200
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <DFF9367A-5D78-4795-988A-FCD37F3C6377@employees.org>
References: <BN7PR11MB254783295780CA79CDA1FAB3CF4F0@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <BN7PR11MB254779A3599EFC466605CD92CF450@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com> <BN7PR11MB25477ED8552DF78132E2F089CF5F0@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/Pz5ZJ09mAPaCZmufXUktRiE9Ia8>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements - respond by August 17th, 2020
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Tue, 18 Aug 2020 07:24:35 -0000

I have read through the document, reading section 4 thoroughly.
I think it looks fine and ready to advance.

A comment:

   R-4:    If the relay has an existing route for a delegated prefix via
           an interface, and receives ingress traffic on this interface
           with a destination address from the delegated prefix (not
           configured on the relay), then it MUST be dropped.

I struggle to understand what R-4 is trying to say.
In one sentence it says it has a delegated prefix, then it says "not configured on the relay"...?


Best regards,
Ole



> On 17 Aug 2020, at 19:23, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> Hi … just a friendly reminder. We’ve had very little input to the WGLC.
>  
> Tim and I will review the responses and evaluate the WGLC later this week (Friday), so you do have a few more days to respond.
>  
> 	• Bernie
>  
> From: dhcwg <dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Bernie Volz (volz)
> Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 8:20 AM
> To: dhcwg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements - respond by August 17th, 2020
>  
> Hi … just a friendly reminder regarding this WGLC.
>  
> Thanks to Ted Lemon for reviewing and commenting!
>  
> 	• Bernie
>  
> From: Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> 
> Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2020 11:07 AM
> To: dhcwg@ietf.org
> Cc: dhc-chairs@ietf.org
> Subject: WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements - respond by August 17th, 2020
>  
> Hi:
>  
> The authors believe this document is ready for WGLC. Therefore, the chairs are initiating a WGLC on this document.
>  
> Please review this document and provide your comments and whether you support this document moving forward or not by end of day on Monday, August 17th, 2020.
>  
> Please see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements-01. This is a Standards Track document.
>  
> There are no IPR notices filed against this work (as of this writing).
>  
> Thank you!
>  
> 	• Tim & Bernie
>  
> --
>  
> From: Naveen Kottapalli <naveen.sarma@gmail.com> 
> Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2020 8:20 AM
> To: dhcwg@ietf.org; dhc-chairs@ietf.org
> Subject: Requesting a WGLC of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements
>  
> Hello chairs,
>  
> We, as authors of the draft, are of the opinion that the draft is ready for WGLC.  Can you please check and initiate the same?
>  
> Yours,
> Naveen.
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg