Re: [dhcwg] [Int-dir] Intdir early review of draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-10

Hi:

I think this text is fine as is. It is also text that was moved from RFC 3315 (last paragraph of Section 14) and has caused no issues (well, it did result in RFC7083 to change SOL_MAX_RT and INF_MAX_RT defaults to reduce the frequency of retransmissions -- so perhaps we can consider that to have addressed the issue?).

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Zhen Cao [mailto:zhencao.ietf@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 11:30 PM
To: Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com>
Cc: int-dir@ietf.org; dhcwg@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis.all@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Int-dir] Intdir early review of draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-10

Hi Bernie,

> First, thanks for the Int-Dir review.
My pleasure as always.

>
> Regarding your comment, the cases where both MRC and MRD are zero is for a Solicit and Information-Request. And, for those particular cases, the client should probably retransmit "forever" at a hopefully low rate (SOL_MAX_RT and INF_MAX_RT are 3600 seconds*) to locate a  DHCP server. This of course depends on the RA M & O bits (indicating a DHCP server is available) or the manual configuration of the client (to explicitly run DHCP).

Then depending on this information, it is up to you to see if there is a need of an affordable better description than the current text.

Cheers,
zhen

>
> * - RFC 3315 used 120 seconds for these values, but that was updated by RFC 7083.
>
> - Bernie
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Int-dir [mailto:int-dir-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Zhen Cao
> Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 3:41 AM
> To: int-dir@ietf.org
> Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org; ietf@ietf.org; 
> draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis.all@ietf.org
> Subject: [Int-dir] Intdir early review of draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-10
>
> Reviewer: Zhen Cao
> Review result: Ready with Issues
>
> I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for this draft. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherds should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details of the INT directorate, see <http://www.ietf.org/iesg/directorate.html>.
>
> This version is quite ready to go, with a small issue that I would 
> like to
> discussion:
>
> In Section. 15 (Reliability of Client Initiated Message Exchanges), I strongly recommend that implementation MUST NOT set both MRC or MRD to ZERO, which attaches a possible risk that the client continues to send this message without
> a stop.    So I would like to propose the following change:
>
> s/
> " If both MRC and MRD are zero, the client continues to transmit the
>    message until it receives a response."
> /
> "The client must be informed with a limit of its retransmission behavior, and MUST NOT set both MRC and MRD to zero"
>
> -zhen
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Int-dir mailing list
> Int-dir@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-dir