IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Mon, 29 July 2013 07:53 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 9C7E821F99BA for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 00:53:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.572
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.572 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.027, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
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 IS-40jd-C6HQ for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 00:52:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og113.obsmtp.com (exprod7og113.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.179]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3521F21F9D11 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 00:52:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob113.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUfYfVSGPAf2hTfoV5mgU6LrAhwkBoDQj@postini.com; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 00:52:54 PDT
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD63C1B825D for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 00:52:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A46F719006B; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 00:52:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 00:52:53 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Some comments regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-unknown-msg-01
Thread-Index: AQHOi+MQLV3h4mNt20+Shng/eneZrJl7JMiAgACMvwCAAAfXAIAABJcAgAAA34A=
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 07:52:52 +0000
Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630775233A9F@mbx-01.win.nominum.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>
In-Reply-To: <51F61E9A.4040105@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <3600342791CE7648A90B652DAF008A82@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "<dhcwg@ietf.org>" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "<cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn>" <cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn>
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 07:53:01 -0000

On Jul 29, 2013, at 9:49 AM, Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13-07-29 09:33, Ted Lemon wrote:
>> On Jul 29, 2013, at 9:05 AM, Marcin Siodelski <msiodelski@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> According to RFC3315, server may use Relay-Reply message if it can't send Reconfigure directly to the client:
>> 
>> Right.   That's a relay-reply message, not a reconfigure message.
> 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.
> 
> Note that the draft says nothing about message types. Here's part of the
> text that needs to be updated in my opinion: "A standards-compliant DHCP
> server will never send a message to the a relay other than in response
> to a message from a relay,...".

What I am getting at is that that text is referring to messages whose final destination is the relay.   Relay-replies are *to* the relay, but that is not the final destination of the communication, and the relay doesn't have to do anything special with them—it just unwraps the enclosed message and forwards it to the specified address.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email