Re: [dhcwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-05: (with COMMENT)

tianxiang li <peter416733@gmail.com> Fri, 17 February 2017 02:26 UTC

Return-Path: <peter416733@gmail.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 550C5129463; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 18:26:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.748
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.748 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 Ss_vv3ANi1XQ; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 18:26:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot0-x229.google.com (mail-ot0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::229]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DB540129400; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 18:26:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot0-x229.google.com with SMTP id t47so23819709ota.1; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 18:26:20 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=95IXckRYJaRQ1Iprrl21oTpi/RwjVUD+jQtfEcd4YWA=; b=IoneRJy8pajY1fTlz638zAM+Z7sJ4ky7wMGtlvWWH+Du5+i6lCQ6T6vmKDq+9XiRIv 3pbEViShWQl1jE5AAsV7wKAuELVHYrXKFRrowkdFVpUPNU1mUnGjjzVlMcpu1CeKxH90 sbNynIDrRj8fmBaKwQQeM8Z4ATNukIepzLomzExhqu4SF6dyNveWZi7xui4pwNK8MQgX UgNt7EZB2/EtLqdKnH5pHP0i5VOn+7iGGy9QB9zX4xGFKw4E7TtcfqDyky1nt1pppryR 4Nxl+/nKaIEI/yn7+hP7VHLvMzHWuH3qKLLUmLllBZx+c1n1sXoRiH6uy2QRZCWVtmxP hVeg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=95IXckRYJaRQ1Iprrl21oTpi/RwjVUD+jQtfEcd4YWA=; b=SpqKachl//IvwU9bynUy9u3+jCS1dPqqmo4pNOStoVZ3rWTrRNAYW50JZoBrZkKXsZ Fn9I0l0aRzo3PdO3qOsZrl1GSBZ/5AxpGunjnAuyo2XOySls1vDgicsr8/IyLhGfa2oP RKfJSF72U7cecThkLv4/JJ8oopQOsXcjEyhFWNbJYRmtZqdrnOR55vyNYILMqieI9jZu CfjCbQe2RjLe4Nbvf2RN/1DNv+2Yt2FP9FRlj80AQ+KGGHIdn5+tVZN1q1xWkRkQQKar kPuOTkjnaC1txSVk0xAfybnLEJWu+X2gYRbNdNDpH2h01+7KqrJI5o3+oE2B8+DDzXIN 3ZZg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39lQD7u/LW+ZjnpdbpUMR+pKSPz9q1a50c39rc/Tfx9EmEmpreoNQrTMYi6Sk1x3LaTjNQCXUei8kLYvaQ==
X-Received: by 10.157.15.154 with SMTP id d26mr395010otd.186.1487298380290; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 18:26:20 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.202.1.202 with HTTP; Thu, 16 Feb 2017 18:25:40 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <148724019438.15925.5760161471481830737.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
References: <148724019438.15925.5760161471481830737.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: tianxiang li <peter416733@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 10:25:40 +0800
Message-ID: <CAFx+hEOkcfH2T_y1FCM0Ofwy8SKNp+qF0uLN5fTAQavv8ufqTA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113cf206a1e0ba0548b0a3ca
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/XeDWYYAkm0AqtfE0SkPO8gscaGg>
Cc: dhc-chairs@ietf.org, Bernie Volz <volz@cisco.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Benoit Claise's No Objection on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 17 Feb 2017 02:26:22 -0000

Hi Benoit,

Thanks for the review and comments.
Please see inline.

Cheers,
Tianxiang

2017-02-16 18:16 GMT+08:00 Benoit Claise <bclaise@cisco.com>om>:

> Benoit Claise has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-05: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
>
>
> Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
>
>
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefi
> x-length-hint-issue/
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >From the draft:
>    [RFC3633] is unclear about how the client and server should act in
>    different situations involving the prefix-length hint.
> >From the shepherd write-up
>    This document specifies information that is useful to DHCPv6 client
>    and server implementers to support allowing clients to specify a
>    prefix length hint when requested delegated prefixes. It clarifies
>    this concept introduced in RFC 3633.
>
> => that implies an UPDATE, no?
> Obviously, this document publication should go forward (so not a
> DISCUSS), but I would like to understand why this is not an update.
>

[Tianxiang] This point was raised during several of the reviews, I think
the general consensus is that this document should update RFC 3633, and
also point people looking at RFC3633 to this document. We would make this
edit in the update.

>
> Editorial nit (by Sue Hares, part of her OPS DIR review):
>
> Page 3 section 3.1 section under problem.  Second paragraph.  Second
> sentence
>
> The best way to assure a completely new delegated prefix is to send a new
> IAID in the IA_PD.
> IAID – abbreviation has not been indicated prior to this use
> Old:/IAID/
> New: /IAID (IA_PD unique identifier)/
>
> [Tianxiang] Thanks you for the reminder, we would make the edit as Bernie
mentioned in the email.

Old: IAID
New: IAID (Identity Association IDentifier)