IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-client-id-02

Richard Johnson <raj@cisco.com> Wed, 25 April 2012 19:59 UTC

Return-Path: <raj@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 2C5A921F892F for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:59:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 7n2fgH1FOBLH for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:59:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bgl-iport-1.cisco.com (bgl-iport-1.cisco.com [72.163.197.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11D5321F8929 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:59:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=raj@cisco.com; l=2105; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1335383985; x=1336593585; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=LZG+SMsL5+60iHMo/cOOiFbXKsZXW8ycH4G/KJy+nxQ=; b=U9kT9eOZha4Spr5JVUeooHUE2jQh3cWeH5SE2CsPYNn3dQ/Llmkc+vzY i7uttUmEk3ixi/P0RVoNMr0sK70bv7BgRWWQckkCBWMoZFMspwZ0ybwMZ IQKXWz3lIm4TWOkeDCyXSo8j+bBJ8I/ETv6TBj4YkeEI8OF76J6FlYmva U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AqwFADhWmE9Io8UY/2dsb2JhbAA7CoMdrziCCQEBAQMBAQEBDwFbCwULC0YnMAYTIodoBQubL6AQBIlrgQmFCWMEiGONGIV0iGGBaYMJ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,481,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="10878452"
Received: from vla196-nat.cisco.com (HELO bgl-core-3.cisco.com) ([72.163.197.24]) by bgl-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 25 Apr 2012 19:59:42 +0000
Received: from [10.32.254.179] (stealth-10-32-254-179.cisco.com [10.32.254.179]) by bgl-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q3PJxeUH027581; Wed, 25 Apr 2012 19:59:41 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
From: Richard Johnson <raj@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <64B00097-8ACB-4170-9303-8F863A47C2B5@nominum.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2012 12:59:39 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0579F6EF-7CBE-456C-AFE4-756023B0D406@cisco.com>
References: <64B00097-8ACB-4170-9303-8F863A47C2B5@nominum.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
Cc: DHC WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-client-id-02
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, 25 Apr 2012 19:59:46 -0000

I definitely support this draft, although I think the current description of the problem to be solved could use quite a lot of work to make it more clear.  Your own description is quite clear, but the document is not really.

/raj


On Apr 14, 2012, at 5:54 AM, Ted Lemon wrote:

> This document corrects a bug in RFC2131 that forbids the DHCP server from returning a DHCP client identifier.   The lack of a DHCP client identifier creates a problem in two cases: where the underlying transport has no link-layer address, and where two clients are running on the same host, supplying different client identifiers so as to present different network identities.   In both of these cases, insufficient information is returned from the DHCP server to clearly identify the client that is the intended recipient of the message.   The only way to fix this is to _require_ the DHCP server to return the client identifier if it receives it.   This is what the proposed document does.
> 
> We checked for consensus in the meeting, and four people were in favor of advancing the draft; nobody was against.
> 
> I think this is actually pretty important work—it's a lingering bug in the spec which I think will come back to bite us more and more as we start getting deeper into the dual-stack transition.   So if you haven't read the document, please do. 
> 
> If you support advancing it, please signify by replying to this message and saying that you support it. If you think it's a bad idea, please signify by replying to this message and explaining why.   If you have comments or changes to propose, please send them along, and also signify whether you are in favor of advancement with the change, without the change, or oppose advancement.
> 
> We will determine consensus on April 27, based solely on responses on the mailing list, so please do respond.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email