Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-unknown-msg-03 - Respond by Dec 2, 2013

Marcin Siodelski <msiodelski@gmail.com> Mon, 02 December 2013 12:38 UTC

Return-Path: <msiodelski@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3C371AE45C for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 04:38:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id P1utPGnOUHLh for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 04:38:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pb0-x22f.google.com (mail-pb0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 37C661AE343 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 04:38:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pb0-f47.google.com with SMTP id um1so18706364pbc.6 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Dec 2013 04:38:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=KXdUi3O99DzGVHLt8uKRgkOPr8mSeq5IM7YoC4nrDD8=; b=0+KrYykY7cgMHkGaQABO3FenFe0gbEE+9NagLn8taZiZAD6W1zPcQQjYs4A3rtZcn5 FAJRsZ74ZSYrGT0yRppBK3GN0lR1NUA/vrDIYhAjeZI23ghoEbtLgjVonxjZiu3lVWB7 qyMKLAL43RYvm1ls6ivHyhymBM9B3zlV2ium27VYUA+T0hgOOrwB8CShC8Wvz/sJKoca SbctbaYa2pYlwKmgeTLtipPy++pDg4D0eK/0l6oENfNbsQQRsPQokPLfmBkD1aIb9ouU WCdbV24DekTuslYd1h35SCLp9tuxIQ0hmvh0fy//We1rl95PT8YsCdRezy9PRI8t4oGz pKUA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.149.37 with SMTP id tx5mr27898229pab.81.1385987880075; Mon, 02 Dec 2013 04:38:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.70.130.169 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Dec 2013 04:38:00 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <DEEB7D15-5356-4A9C-A899-9CBC6B14C326@gmail.com>
References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AD98DE0@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1ADC2A5B@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <CAFGoqUMh-xT+GsJQNHGUcisqcphAVFZXnQ6ac+GXq76wBBiyYw@mail.gmail.com> <AC25F22F-A27C-40FC-B4AF-9EA886D973A6@gmail.com> <CAFGoqUOtzad1iNMrqs5vyy5wqewxw445Q_iAiKgYjgLvocR5EQ@mail.gmail.com> <DEEB7D15-5356-4A9C-A899-9CBC6B14C326@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2013 13:38:00 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFGoqUPoth6VbdX8hPZaeN4Hh5Fi7eBJXBhcO8NmqirQqePSvg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Marcin Siodelski <msiodelski@gmail.com>
To: Qi Sun <sunqi.csnet.thu@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "Bernie Volz \(volz\)" <volz@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-unknown-msg-03 - Respond by Dec 2, 2013
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 02 Dec 2013 12:38:04 -0000

On Mon, Dec 2, 2013 at 1:26 PM, Qi Sun <sunqi.csnet.thu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Marcin,
>
> On 2013-12-2, at 下午5:32, Marcin Siodelski wrote:
>
>>>> ISSUE 2
>>>> In this sentence:
>>>>
>>>> "In the case that a new type of relay message is sent to a relay agent
>>>>  but the relay agent doesn't recognize it, the message is put into a
>>>>  Relay-forward message and sent to the server."
>>>>
>>>> Why "new type of relay message", not "new type of message"? I don't
>>>> quite understand what the relay message is in this context.
>>>
>>> [Qi] A new type of relay message targets at the relay agent. If a relay agent recognizes the message, then it should consume the message. Otherwise, the relay just sends the message to the server (in a Relay-forward message), so that the server gets the information that this relay doesn't support the new relay agent message.
>>> In Bullet (b), the message doesn't take the relay agent as the target.
>>> If this part isn't clear enough, we can improve it.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for this explanation. Let me rephrase my question, because I
>> was asking about slightly different thing....
>>
>> Would it still be ok if we had this text: "In the case that a new type
>> of message is sent to a relay agent..... ", instead of "In the case
>> that a new type of relay message is sent to a relay agent..."? Simply
>> removed "relay". I don't understand how "relay message" is different
>> from the "message" or "valid message".
>>
>
> Thanks for your patience. What I wanted to say was that the new type of message targets at the relay agent rather than the client/server. IMHO, if remove "relay", the relationship between this paragraph and the bullet (b) might be a little confusing.
> How about this:
>
>    In the case that a new type of message targets at a relay agent
>    but the relay agent does not recognize it, ...
>
> Would the expression be better?
>

IMHO, that is much better. In the former case, the verb "send" makes
it ambiguous - message sent to a relay agent doesn't have to be
necessarily consumed/processed by relay, it could be forwarded. At
least this is how I read it. :-)

Marcin