Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 - Respond by Dec 9, 2013

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Tue, 03 December 2013 01:46 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 8CF7C1AE01D for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 17:46:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.502 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=-0.001, 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 nZy2DXiNgkcJ for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 17:46:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-2.cisco.com (alln-iport-2.cisco.com [173.37.142.89]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28C9E1AE009 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 17:46:45 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1283; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1386035203; x=1387244803; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=s1R06+0WGAodjmMPLh2cNw47v9ACdT1qNnyPB0GS3BU=; b=MSsTjVbYAZ5cD8LRqCTW2ikSYiKhjORH05SqBJn3xC6i1d/TwJw5ZhK2 1ruVRJuxpqmJWb1m4NKtOZo+zuxv3XFpdouA1AYJst/Ll6vFahnX6e0i1 8Fv293tn3AoCy4BIwe6ZVkCBkyoMbVvxEy+apGhZwV/iVw5qbECp+0Brp g=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgIFAMo3nVKtJXG+/2dsb2JhbABZgwc4uTuBGxZ0giUBAQEDATo/EAIBCA4oEDIlAQEEDgWHewbAaBeOVTMHgyCBEwOYFJITgWuBPg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,814,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="3820933"
Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by alln-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Dec 2013 01:46:35 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com [173.36.12.80]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rB31kZsU026747 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 3 Dec 2013 01:46:35 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.232]) by xhc-aln-x06.cisco.com ([173.36.12.80]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 19:46:34 -0600
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 - Respond by Dec 9, 2013
Thread-Index: Ac7pYNYYaEg536DmSXaLna21+HapNwGZSwcAAADfOVc=
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 01:46:33 +0000
Message-ID: <70E0AB50-27FB-4388-96DB-F46D260E553B@cisco.com>
References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1ADA99A8@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>, <3219ECB2-F220-403B-984B-7254677528DE@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <3219ECB2-F220-403B-984B-7254677528DE@employees.org>
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
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 - Respond by Dec 9, 2013
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: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 01:46:46 -0000

Hi:

That's an informational RFC and references (informational) work in progress (which sometimes changes or is even abandoned). That's the risk the IETF acknowledges with such references.

If DHCPv4 works "as is", what more do you need from the DHC WG? Use DHCPv4 "as is" - what's stopping you?

We are trying to solve the general problem when all that can be assured is the ability to send IPv6 packets.

We will consider your objection during the rough consensus review.

- Bernie (from iPad)

On Dec 2, 2013, at 2:21 PM, "Ole Troan" <otroan@employees.org> wrote:

>> Folks, the authors of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03.txt) believe it is ready for working group last call. Please review this draft and indicate whether or not you feel it is ready to be published. Your input is important! Please respond by Dec 9th, 2013.
> 
> I do not support publication of this document.
> I believe that using DHCPv4 as currently specified (RFC2131, RFC5107, RFC3456, RFC3046) is sufficient also for A+P softwire tunnels.
> 
> RFC7040 references DHCPv4 over IPv6. is this working group also going to specify this alternative transport?
> 
> cheers,
> Ole
>