IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Qi Sun <sunqi.csnet.thu@gmail.com> Mon, 29 July 2013 09:03 UTC

Return-Path: <sunqi.csnet.thu@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 1102211E80D1 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 02:03:14 -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=[AWL=-0.000, 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 D+iMCii1C+md for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 02:03:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-x22e.google.com (mail-pb0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DDC211E80A2 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 02:03:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f46.google.com with SMTP id rq2so679999pbb.19 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 02:03:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=RbnDQWyitD3okLoEfiYDsAVe3M/Lgpc4LKKBAIo4dQA=; b=zNwmUlXXagIJ0ZQ4p5sV9LAlBWQmvij/2EYA8beBZ0TaY3ScZcayhwLXvH2QHFC1N5 kjEcmEwFgWsznnkNMrHFyvLpHj2POLsqmIw+9Au4vF7D6kyqyACu94yVyUXxSklS7FL3 rpN2toU+ci8XdtNPi/RfjWVTG7YfVXIgvcp23kyAAO22TQUY+QTxKkBw6dwP+asxfGvN HE1Xh/nF1k3utehFPQR+JtoyXVe6Ii5b/JKTAij3SDBrIkIDt1CQY4hnjc3E1TXbtra1 xz+0+ddof8uPgPb6CNhV1o7TztmbGTJfNPm/4HSc5NAOXUxRkaaf5qMnRDhJZbGaQBZR thKA==
X-Received: by 10.68.162.36 with SMTP id xx4mr21795781pbb.47.1375088590980; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 02:03:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:df8::16:9284:dff:fef3:d346? ([2001:df8:0:16:9284:dff:fef3:d346]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ue9sm19628161pab.7.2013.07.29.02.03.08 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 29 Jul 2013 02:03:10 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-110--503093091"
From: Qi Sun <sunqi.csnet.thu@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <59AC99E8-885D-4D18-9C4A-3AE649F9FA95@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 11:03:01 +0200
Message-Id: <9EF31D11-CBF7-41FD-BB64-71D69FB015C1@gmail.com>
References: <CAFGoqUPOVNOknZFD7JkhOSDqu63VML6iH7yyuA-je-_8W=G2bQ@mail.gmail.com>, <A62A9726-FD37-4715-9073-480187798603@gmail.com> <59AC99E8-885D-4D18-9C4A-3AE649F9FA95@cisco.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
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 09:03:14 -0000

Hi Bernie,

> I wonder if reworking the draft a bit would be worthwhile. In some cases it makes statements that could be dangerous in the long run. 

Would you please elaborate so that we could work on them?


Best Regards,
Qi Sun


On 2013-7-29, at 上午10:32, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:

> I wonder if reworking the draft a bit would be worthwhile. In some cases it makes statements that could be dangerous in the long run. 
> 
> The basic concept is that a received msg is either forwarded or consumed by relay.
> 
> If the message is a Relay-forw or Relay-Reply, RFC 3315 explains how to handle it.
> 
> If not one of these and not one to be consumed by relay (ie, Reconfigure-Reply), it should be forwarded (Relay-forw) unless policy disallows (ie, not client facing interface).
> 
> - Bernie (from iPhone)
> 
> On Jul 29, 2013, at 10:08 AM, "Qi Sun" <sunqi.csnet.thu@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> Hi Marcin ,
>> 
>> Thanks for the review! 
>> 
>>> It would be good to distinguish between the term "intended recipient" and "recipient". From the context I understand that the intended recipient is used with regards to the target for the message being passed through relays and the recipient is a term used to describe a host which is currently holding a message. Perhaps this clarification could be placed in the glossary or somewhere in the text?
>>> 
>>> Consider this:
>>> "... the message is valid for constructing a new Relay-forward message if the recipient is a relay agent, the relay agent does not identify itself as the intended recipient, and the message is not a Relay-Reply message".
>>> 
>>> There is a mix-up of these two terms which may suggest that the message is sent to a wrong relay which is  not an "intended recipient", while the sentence is actually meant to tell that the relay is not a target for the message being encapsulated.
>> 
>> How about the following text:
>> 
>> "... the message is valid for constructing a new Relay-forward message if a relay agent receives the message, but the relay agent does not identify itself as the target of the message, and the message is not a Relay-Reply message."
>> 
>> Is the usage of 'target' here is precise? 
>> 
>> Best Regards,
>> Qi
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> dhcwg mailing list
>> dhcwg@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email