Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 - Respond by Dec 9, 2013

Qi Sun <> Wed, 27 November 2013 16:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7142C1ACCE7 for <>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 08:18:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gexvF-4njr1x for <>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 08:18:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::235]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA53E1AC441 for <>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 08:18:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id p10so10093415pdj.26 for <>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 08:18:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=ipen5o7cMBy1FHSPhkiVJwQm0J0tenTIXEW7qMEC+rU=; b=LHyihftvLTokUtkog5AE4WBfYQOYsYYlplBvI8lNp1KoL+bE+k8fOzAi7qjM2o7FEM bY6bxW7OCBJ2nvojcH1qHLoHQW9n7jK9+cNr/39d2A2lLrig3ZeuLXTP5/Xk6E10ZNy0 TvXMgyHcCm8LuQK3Rfw1iUTpRRDExIfnBMS8k37dvoYYU/znbm4fjwN9eboB5Nz51IjS IWmU9OMBNfwAM6bpWM2yMFmEpwnw9bl3zX+zC7XrNzijrcn4CYWcDy9I54ErRHN47aM1 tA/am3b2SGCQyIaCdqTQCcsoqQ6KKPsaW3qWO0L+ks9jwCI8+tkli/aN0i+8DBJKLzqq mKxQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id x6mr17177385pas.142.1385569112334; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 08:18:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id gv10sm83132276pbd.0.2013. for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 27 Nov 2013 08:18:31 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-1--759996708
From: Qi Sun <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 00:18:16 +0800
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <>
To: Simon Perreault <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 - Respond by Dec 9, 2013
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 16:18:34 -0000

Hi Simon,

Thanks for your review. Please see inline.
> - The client MUST always include both OPTION_DHCP4_O_DHCP6_ENABLE and OPTION_DHCP4_O_DHCP6_SERVER in the ORO.

[Qi] RFC3315 says that the client SHOULD use unicast if instructed by the server. In this document, if the client doesn't include this option, it can still work (using multicast). So I think it's SHOULD for the OPTION_DHCP4_O_DHCP6_SERVER.

> - The server responds with zero (if DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6 is not available) or one of two options. Never both.
>    - OPTION_DHCP4_O_DHCP6_ENABLE means "multicast".
>    - OPTION_DHCP4_O_DHCP6_SERVER means "unicast".
> If this makes sense, then I would rename the options: s/ENABLE/MULTICAST/ and s/SERVER/UNICAST/. And maybe go further and kill OPTION_DHCP4_O_DHCP6_ENABLE, and just put the multicast address in the payload of OPTION_DHCP4_O_DHCP6_SERVER.

[Qi] The multicast address is a well-known address in RFC3315. The client knows it even you don't tell the client. I don't think it necessary to put the multicast address into the option. 

> By the way, a suggestion for the document: replace all instances of "4o6 Server Address option" with the full option name, "OPTION_DHCP4_O_DHCP6_SERVER". Always using the same terminology makes it much easier to grep the document.

[Qi] Thanks for the suggestion! IMHO, the "4o6 Server Address option" is the name of the option, while the OPTION_DHCP4_O_DHCP6_SERVER is the option code to be assigned by the IANA. What I get from RFC3315 is that when you refer to an option, use the name; if you want to mention the code, then use the uppercase phrase.
But I will check to wording to make sure the document uses the same terminology.

Best Regards,