IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] FW: New VersionNotification fordraft-yeh-dhc-dhcpv6-authorization-opt-00.txt

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Wed, 28 March 2012 12:15 UTC

Return-Path: <volz@cisco.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 43AFA21E81A4 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 05:15:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -8.162
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.162 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.026, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067]
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 8s4JDwA8dhxu for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 05:15:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com [173.37.86.76]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E51721E8196 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 05:15:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=volz@cisco.com; l=907; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1332936903; x=1334146503; h=subject:references:content-transfer-encoding:from: in-reply-to:message-id:date:to:cc:mime-version; bh=Vi2+t9Nq0NPIb+HXJKthwqrV4mOE7sLdaUcWh17bh6I=; b=Lbi6DvJnjsfnDju0k4P7mh7Bl6dumHyvVK+RKAd76t0/B3L8lXMe6f4S QdYxYN8HLUMEZPAKFbkO7eTdasDBKJFaCbvkklHqVZMkAdaZXE9tzKaEa MLqOsDTtqxZmuwx88Uo/oLVeDQBoMOqRseAolDnYM89eVKFS3uJvzkH9v Y=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AokIALz/ck+tJXHA/2dsb2JhbABFigauZQKBB4IJAQEBAwESASc/EAIBCBI0SQUJAQEEEyKHYwWbWJ8dkC9jBJVhjkWBaIMD
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,661,1325462400"; d="scan'208";a="70073185"
Received: from rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com ([173.37.113.192]) by rcdn-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 28 Mar 2012 12:15:03 +0000
Received: from xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com (xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com [72.163.62.200]) by rcdn-core2-5.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q2SCF2mG005112; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:15:03 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-101.cisco.com ([72.163.62.143]) by xbh-rcd-201.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 28 Mar 2012 07:15:02 -0500
Received: from 72.163.63.13 ([72.163.63.13]) by XMB-RCD-101.cisco.com ([72.163.62.143]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:15:02 +0000
References: <E1CE3E6E6D4E1C438B0ADC9FFFA345EA218D0B71@SZXEML510-MBX.china.huawei.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307472D0C15@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <B5E4EA0D-48CA-4667-AC35-C7D254304F2F@cisco.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307472D1C76@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] FW: New VersionNotification fordraft-yeh-dhc-dhcpv6-authorization-opt-00.txt
Thread-Index: Ac0M3GcSn60rwbX1TN6cYk9ZQ9/5qw==
In-Reply-To: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307472D1C76@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
Message-ID: <8E1E6B16-2FF8-4971-A143-179CE7BF31B1@cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:15:05 -0400
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 28 Mar 2012 12:15:02.0849 (UTC) FILETIME=[67447310:01CD0CDC]
Cc: dhc WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] FW: New VersionNotification fordraft-yeh-dhc-dhcpv6-authorization-opt-00.txt
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: Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:15:05 -0000

I guess the core question is how is this different from 4014 (other than the obvious ones related to different DHCP versions)? The intro text is very different, but aren't they both trying to do the same thing? That of course begs the question as to what is wrong with the 4014 text (appropriately adjusted for v6). If this is trying to do something different, it certainly isn't clear to me.

Sent from my iPad

On Mar 28, 2012, at 8:02 AM, "Ted Lemon" <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> wrote:

>> I fully agree. I had always thought it good if we had a v6 equivalent
>> of RFC 4014. Jusy a container for comminicating a subset of the
>> RADIUS attributes would work very well.
> 
> That's not actually what I was suggesting, but okay.
> 
> The main issue with this draft, though, is a simple one: is this the right architecture to solve the problem described in the introduction?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email