Re: [dhcwg] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol-04: (with COMMENT)

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Thu, 02 February 2017 15:31 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 49FA9129662; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 07:31:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-3.199, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
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 lNOPfdRWriXq; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 07:31:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 88CFC129468; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 07:31:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39B23BE5D; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 15:31:02 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8qIelSqgeAcR; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 15:31:00 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [10.87.48.75] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2E139BE38; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 15:31:00 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1486049460; bh=aAHD3t2PWgmJOiEJRvJMZzahDWKKITZfBfWZMuLciPQ=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=JT4ITfTMriW7NBrDOkU6ti4jVDwTYqt1gRNYRaj0hqVHJfLl62vTqCf0ndukwLnQL wiNfM0Kqy8UEa6pIS7MNX/3qFhsmnDCG+2HWjuofvPtG62sX03wHVCgmb9gfSFj0mj 5Ym+z+ixIfXSbbzdfFO86s2kpeFRtfPa17qyBIH8=
To: kkinnear <kkinnear@cisco.com>
References: <148599922705.18700.14648245113952484559.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <2BD6519B-F6AC-4630-8666-13D3ED54054C@cisco.com>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <8f0ee693-8fd9-0202-209d-09b503f2231b@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 15:30:59 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <2BD6519B-F6AC-4630-8666-13D3ED54054C@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg=sha-256; boundary="------------ms070607020000020900010208"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/Q9emNGKuMNr3lhPRe-VdpbXglKI>
Cc: dhc-chairs@ietf.org, dhcwg@ietf.org, Bernie Volz <volz@cisco.com>, draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Stephen Farrell's No Objection on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol-04: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 15:31:11 -0000

Hi Kim,

On 02/02/17 15:28, kkinnear wrote:
> 	In the (now blessedly distant) past, we spent years working on
> 	the DHCPv4 failover protocol trying to shoehorn configuration
> 	information into the protocol, and it never worked.  DHCP
> 	servers need *lots* of configuration, and we have most
> 	consciously decided that synchronizing that configuration
> 	between failover partners is not the purpose of the DHCPv6
> 	failover protocol.

Thanks - that'd have helped me as a reader but if implementers
would know it for sure, then I guess it's fine as-is.

Thanks,
S.