Re: [dhcwg] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-yang-22 Thu, 03 February 2022 15:34 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0EC73A0917; Thu, 3 Feb 2022 07:34:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xjKhmpMpogil; Thu, 3 Feb 2022 07:34:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B19AE3A090F; Thu, 3 Feb 2022 07:34:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=badeba3b8450; t=1643902480; bh=l6H8YQaWeT4XRJBU0q+1fdGWGDzsSk5LvB6MEVe7liI=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:Cc:To:References; b=MfE5HwQSdKRInN7BZv737M1U9wE5OpNKoFB24b7LhLgggvjoP/Xf/1+mvWY0eE2bS BUYhmYsIgobF9h3rAUOnrkYeINSJ4b+6VcHn9Y77ivAZI/sZHhXUUAKMT6Ew6/3bMZ a9SdpigtRxKfL96r4RV/XleKSDM4z7aZ5MlSdfLg=
X-UI-Sender-Class: 01bb95c1-4bf8-414a-932a-4f6e2808ef9c
Received: from ([]) by (mrgmx004 []) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MNbp3-1mqXpj1whH-00P8Yg; Thu, 03 Feb 2022 16:34:40 +0100
Message-Id: <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D7A9D308-9229-41C7-A4CF-C1591106E26F"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 15.0 \(3693.\))
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2022 16:34:39 +0100
In-Reply-To: <>
Cc: "Eric Vyncke (evyncke)" <>,,
To: t petch <>
References: <> <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3693.
X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:JZ0ogQ+vPJAONq34sVX6Mu7Cc6oatwOQHzcj7ZIl9fDIo3pDI3t KTgn4CDLAinJUncAFZxbvfpqD8ni4JvD/Nkurpc1gys3AAUZ91/T5E37mnXNLlOs+1Ry8Az GHFsTeXK++wCRuH3hs8R3VUEd/MykTSQUmeRojVu1gKAakyw5Y1wKBz78Ijf/GH+a98ggo0 Kdy4qWVLGStjvE4z0cImQ==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:cWKKX6X3xU8=:+XdEV0rlB32j7Omtg5Scp2 6UHXJR+R0sIXDyIBjbYb5KeFftrGFfwz2N5B+qabiYP8rHy4WTglft98SB26KnX6jJ8q0WciU xmL7wTp66D2AE60P0YRWHdlGOjWGl+K2LKo2suQXMc6ziUAAUGkMD380FZD2q7bCdVSzPqfb6 QHArxDJum3Hfq/R2LL8ZBw0XVc74PJJjZVh+588IIQTVk0RPRkD4baHzILFy3PgZQqqQi6tDK j9/iXyPfzLaD0PoVmZdFOpcpuUY0QwmwK8v1b+KjowiLormEVitWpSy1Fo7cViHUTBmXvGcBb BxroiVFtyRfT0j6K12QPTq9hBaJRkfly8wjFLLT94+yDxVUqx+jf9MUGAv3KY3NISpbdJ72Mm T89qW87owHUqyAWD7oQGfotvgopnBt8VnV+lBKcjiwtd5IPp4WAC+nxaukzDAZWn3fMUTzz0M gPmb92MAa6Xg4wVp8/oB/4FInKkWqtaX9ARN+n07bs4V0TIKRjC/AP0S5DstXkmaHhNMbwO7p Hsth4SuC+osrHJM5UMsPPpT9LYEs/orQvrvLdEvmsAIfbt5Me1L6Go/oar30nwJw/NZNPmDMS 6/ctM2eXqms11Mtsure/PZB5KAC/TRcJOe6cI1qjqvkFM7mJjqcBDSyr7nnu597FpiSm8x2E8 TYkRuJQdi0Mkso2ynqmP8wKf/YyqmsOIWzhFCHUZRlTRHrCXnlhtnTXFPCaAFEnhCG61mvIDg tj2mCxZamrp9zZQov+fH4Bf2TSbp6V07hh1U2pgy9SWkSJqIenb0zN6rHLQCghPPnLCJC7V2B 7SiQxWDrcsZyqoJcW3+b1U/FgcrnkOiD1E8sPGdpKt9stIa+5QjqB9pq9W0HI8yNxDf+ESb74 gXjaSg+pm9KpDWcoesE5ki9YDzxOV/7ic1TWR5RFKCwsETkIw1F7G7nfju6eBY0+AyionNuZT KdwsOwohIvWs8sHLPh30WgduDKYDgggW6la8vnjyErWAZGldubjkJg1mCCv1/WZImthd76Vzj mm7Lo/pkIqL3FXXLRm5OCNiBo0MpgXYBQp+zMR9Stku9Ya3L/hfVl5i3Czn4bVl9oqjCwL3SE klj3+7iHW2ljzg=
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Publication has been requested for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-yang-22
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Dynamic Host Configuration <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2022 15:34:52 -0000

Hi Tom,

Thank you for your comments, and apologies for the delayed reply. Please see inline below.


> On 17. Dec 2021, at 13:11, t petch <> wrote:
> On 16/12/2021 12:48, t petch wrote:
>> Belatedly getting to review -23
>> Why is it prefix delegation almost everywhere but prefix-del in the
>> client module?  Worth an explanatory paragraph IMHO.
>> IANA dhcpv6 parameters is  a sort of reference in the YANG but not for
>> the I-D
>> I can see what the feature statements do for client duid in the client
>> module but am uncertain whether or not that is what is wanted.
>> Precedence of operators is
>> not
>> and
>> or
>> so interface duid is present for
>> temp-addr and anon-profile
>> or
>> prefix-del
>> or
>> non-temp-addr
>> I think but as my Boolean arithmetic stopped when I found you only ever
>> needed non-equivalence to design any logic ever I have never been too
>> sure of mixed 'and' 'or' without brackets.
> I have now been through -23 and -24.  I note the changes to client duid and still have doubts about the if-feature Boolean logic but think that this is not helped by the related text being bad.  It seems to come from a different planet.

[if - 

The logic for client-duid has been changed to:

      if-feature "(non-temp-addr or prefix-delegation " +               
        "or temp-addr) and not anon-profile”;

Description has been rewritten as follows:

      client-duid/interface-duid: The DUID (DHCP Unique Identifier) is   
      used to identify the client to servers and relays.  A DUID        
      consists of a two-octet type field and an arbitrary length (1-128 
      octets) content field.  Currently there are four defined types of 
      DUIDs in [RFC8415] and [RFC6355].  The DUID may be configured         
      using the format for one of these types, or using the             
      'unstructured' format.  The DUID type definitions are imported    
      from the 'ietf-dhcpv6-common.yang' module.  [IANA-HARDWARE-TYPES] 
      and [IANA-PEN] are referenced for the relevant DUID types.  A DUID 
      only needs to be configured if the client is requesting addresses 
      and/or prefixes from the server.  Presence of the 'client-duid' or
      'interface-duid' leaves is conditional on at least one of the         
      'non-temp-addr', 'temp-addr', or 'prefix-delegation' features         
      being enabled.  Additionally, if the 'anon-profile' [RFC7844]         
      feature is enabled, a unique DUID can be configured per DHCP          
      enabled interface using the 'interface-duid' leaf, otherwise there
      is a global 'client-duid' leaf.  


> prefix-delegation has been a feature for ages.  -23 changed he identifier to prefix-del but for client only.  Same description, same reference.  Why?

[if - Reverted to prefix-delegation throughout.]

> the text in 3.3 talks of prefix leasing; everywhere else it is prefix delegation.  What is the difference?

[if - Leasing has been replaced by delegation.]

> the text in 3.3 talks of address leasing.  The YANG module refers to (non-)temporary address allocation.  What is the relationship between these two terms?

[if - leasing no longer used here.]

> I commented before that dhcpv6 parameters should be an I-D reference; I see that it was and think that it still should be

[if - Added. I’ve also added a reference to the DHCP authentication option namespaces registry which is referenced by the auth-option-group.]

> Tom Petch
>> I know - telechat day and I am still going.
>> Tom Petch
>> On 16/09/2021 17:22, Timothy Winters via Datatracker wrote:
>>> Timothy Winters has requested publication of
>>> draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-yang-22 as Proposed Standard on behalf of the
>>> DHC working group.
>>> Please verify the document's state at
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dhcwg mailing list
>>> .
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list