IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Some comments regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-unknown-msg-01

Marcin Siodelski <msiodelski@gmail.com> Mon, 29 July 2013 11:12 UTC

Return-Path: <msiodelski@gmail.com>
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 C6C8321F967F for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 04:12:50 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mTMs8Xa+hC5v for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 04:12:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lb0-x233.google.com (mail-lb0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c04::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0925C21F99AE for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 04:12:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lb0-f179.google.com with SMTP id v1so248746lbd.10 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 04:12:35 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=hiBUhSCufBuZg2DDUx12agsdl1UiLWXlZUV+da6ZtHU=; b=UXzIWPtXL86MUQo85+tpdlj59Q2pxkdz2IRLrdxQl51JaQMsCvSMJrZFApvlZlw74G zb9JuTp62JmTwqR2ifPM/pdb/VZtyKysPEgpLeT/15DNPVYyXKHxa2OK8hWwHsFVCbYZ 4GDuEFrH4osk/5BvQiSRnY/fKJjp7Avu/Ma1oMEoqWhPbLVGUKyxRkUfyirXQYRij/iL NIfuREgIqK3thSTFeC460KoqDS341gDcvvuDp78tcvOBjxtNdBw0xG/3RGG5Kmv74mjd Xqpj1GomC07vJp/4nhrSDRqG+kLyoIoduQFMjxmGaM5Jz71LUzYKGWJJetpcaK+m2ykv 74/g==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.63.2 with SMTP id c2mr25243983lbs.6.1375096354904; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 04:12:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.112.202.170 with HTTP; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 04:12:34 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1CBE1E84-BAF6-4447-89D7-A9AA1B371F74@gmail.com>
References: <CAFGoqUPOVNOknZFD7JkhOSDqu63VML6iH7yyuA-je-_8W=G2bQ@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307752334C7@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <CAFGoqUMLgyVFnhbF7LYhaiFm8HZt3H4T=Oj_014g_U0LcZBD0A@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63077523396E@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <51F61E9A.4040105@gmail.com> <1CBE1E84-BAF6-4447-89D7-A9AA1B371F74@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 13:12:34 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFGoqUMB2Z35LeW2Gh9nwg3JxMJdpe7MhHgG2t-+L4V-84=EqQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Marcin Siodelski <msiodelski@gmail.com>
To: Qi Sun <sunqi.csnet.thu@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c3e880c41e8c04e2a49188"
Cc: "<dhcwg@ietf.org>" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "<cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn>" <cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn>, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Some comments regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-unknown-msg-01
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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, 29 Jul 2013 11:12:51 -0000

On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Qi Sun <sunqi.csnet.thu@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Hi Tomek ,
>
> > Yes, but the message type is irrelevant. Marcin's point was that
> > the draft says that that server will never send a message that is not a
> > response to a message from a relay, which is not true.
>
> What the server sends out is a Relay-Reply message, rather than a
> Reconfigure message. The Relay-reply message is the message that in
> response to the relay agent.
>
> We circle around the actual problem. Yes, the Relay-reply is most of the
time sent in response to the relay agent, but there are some cases when the
server initiates the communication and sends the Relay-reply message which
 is not generated as a response to the message sent from relay (RFC3315,
19.1.1).
Note that this doesn't change anything in the definition of the "valid"
message that you specify in the draft. It only invalidates the statement in
one of the bullets that explain why the definition has been specified as it
is.

Marcin

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email