IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] RFC3315bis - Naming

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Mon, 03 March 2014 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 [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 915621A01E3 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 07:36:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.048
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 LWqgVKSK_vXv for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 07:36:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-1.cisco.com (alln-iport-1.cisco.com [173.37.142.88]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D9011A01DF for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 07:36:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1453; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1393861002; x=1395070602; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=rkliwditvn188W1+ZF6c20TYrLD89OcgJDdHZq6r/Tw=; b=JvFwIaswoj4O39athhCDIDvQ99CUucjHhuYL9CXLceRqiAzVxeyG0i+a QpWDsEOD0/oFNuEAjsEwi/R4LAuBoaUujGwIgZbunsWNnO1ZJAQRpXKXq KhNdwaOsGxLhfTPKj8pv9kHpTtV46RbRbrvFGK7WWNZRFljTtya7sYC1A M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgMFAOCgFFOtJXG8/2dsb2JhbABagwY7wSeBIhZ0giUBAQEDAQEBATc0CwULAgEIDgoeECEGCyUCBA4Fh2UDCQgNxT8NhlwTBIxDgWMzB4MkgRQElk+BbYxjhUiDLQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,578,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="24507170"
Received: from rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com ([173.37.113.188]) by alln-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Mar 2014 15:36:30 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com [173.37.183.89]) by rcdn-core2-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s23FaUof010229 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Mon, 3 Mar 2014 15:36:30 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.98]) by xhc-rcd-x15.cisco.com ([173.37.183.89]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 09:36:29 -0600
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: Marcin Siodelski <msiodelski@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] RFC3315bis - Naming
Thread-Index: AQHPNujGhoLhuX8l10+XSbdajG5I85rPyo2A//+0UzY=
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 15:36:29 +0000
Message-ID: <CC5278FF-29BE-4F46-9010-D2754AF3683E@cisco.com>
References: <AF7019CB-8EEB-4E43-A5B0-4863D763B0E2@employees.org> <53148AAB.8000601@gmail.com>, <CAFGoqUPCCBGu2e5Nw5vDS_3c_a30p=p2qc8xcM-+yWuEFtmGwA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFGoqUPCCBGu2e5Nw5vDS_3c_a30p=p2qc8xcM-+yWuEFtmGwA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/QKjTx-fCA0wg3N6uH4gJkXZtENg
Cc: DHC WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" <rdroms@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] RFC3315bis - Naming
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: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 15:36:46 -0000

I was expecting we would define this all in intro (glossary) ... Requesting router = client. We will use client / server in most of the text (as rfc 3315 does).

- Bernie (from iPad)

> On Mar 3, 2014, at 9:07 AM, "Marcin Siodelski" <msiodelski@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Tomek Mrugalski
> <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 03.03.2014, 09:28, Ole Troan wrote:
>>> I don't see a new to maintain the separate terms. just use client,
>>> relay and server.
>> Hear hear. Unless folks who favor delegating/requesting router
>> nomenclature appear in huge numbers soon, we'll go with the client,
>> relay and server.
> 
> Current terminology for DHCP client and server in RFC3315 is:
> 
> DHCP client (or client):  A node that initiates requests on a link  to
> obtain configuration parameters from one or more DHCP servers.
> DHCP server (or server):  A node that responds to requests from
> clients, and may or may not be on the same link as the client(s).
> 
> If we just stick to this terminology, there is nothing in it that
> precludes it's use for PDs, as the node is a general term. So, I agree
> that we should use client, server and relay for prefix delegation,
> which would make editorial work way easier.
> 
> Marcin
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email