[dhcwg] Reviewing draft-lemon-dhcpv4-to-v6-id-trans.txt

Eric.Luce@nominum.com Thu, 22 April 2004 00:42 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA05592 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 20:42:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BGSFg-0003L6-PY for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 20:39:40 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3M0de5A012832 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 20:39:40 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BGS2p-0006cK-LB for dhcwg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 20:26:23 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA04573 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 20:26:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org ([132.151.6.1] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BGS2n-0003HJ-Hs for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 20:26:21 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BGS1v-00035x-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 20:25:28 -0400
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BGS19-0002tg-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 20:24:39 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BGRwe-0003Pv-U7; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 20:20:00 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BDpyv-0001Gz-Dt for dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 15:23:33 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA17532 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 15:23:31 -0400 (EDT)
From: Eric.Luce@nominum.com
Message-Id: <200404141923.PAA17532@ietf.org>
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BDpyt-0001ql-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 15:23:32 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BDpxs-0001lg-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 15:22:28 -0400
Received: from shell-ng.nominum.com ([81.200.64.181]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BDpwp-0001aT-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 15:21:23 -0400
Received: from shell-ng.nominum.com (localhost.nominum.com [127.0.0.1]) by shell-ng.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A6B256852 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:20:52 -0700 (PDT)
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-URI: http://www.nominum.com/
X-Face: 6K2.ZvQgQ.NDQLIx.1pW(xRu*">:}&PX-Ad_!!?wU7H4L"wF"0xEwYu=8Or0V+=5?-eO1XL 7-0Hom/|]B2C7Uznyol-NVnvEk:+sod^MyB4v4qVpPDemr; b@pZdRSXu.'Gm^t0?2l,j[&t.kbc[UW x6Lz^e$K$W
Mime-Version: 1.0 (generated by tm-edit 1.8)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2004 14:23:34 -0700
Resent-To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Resent-Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:20:52 -0700
Resent-From: Eric Scanner Luce <Eric.Luce@nominum.com>
Resent-Message-Id: <20040414192052.9A6B256852@shell-ng.nominum.com>
Subject: [dhcwg] Reviewing draft-lemon-dhcpv4-to-v6-id-trans.txt
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER, NO_REAL_NAME autolearn=no version=2.60

I reviewed the draft draft-lemon-dhcpv4-to-v6-id-trans.txt and I came
across three points that either need slight clarification or wording.

With these changes I support the advancement of this draft:

A minor nit, in "3.1. Do Nothing" there is a small typo:

   - Once the old lease has expired, these resources (particularly the
   - client's domain name) will be available for any client to claim.

Should probably be:

   - Once the old lease has expired, these resources (particularly the
     client's domain name) will be available for any client to claim.

In section "3.2. Propose New Identifier in DHCPREQUEST"

It discusses sending a DHCPRELEASE followed by DHCPDISCOVER to reclaim
the resources associated with the old lease when attempting to move the
lease to the new client identifier. 

Since there is no confirmation on a DHCPRELEASE suceedint and it may
take some small but not insignificant time for the server to release the
resources (in particular the ddns update) specifying a small delay
between the DHCPRELEASE and the DHCPDISCOVER is probably a good idea.

In section "3.4. Probe for Leases Under Old Identifier"

Where it says "Leases that are acquired during the probing process are
never _added_ to the list of leases needing to be converted" perhaps;
get rid of the emphasized 'added' and say: "Leases that are acquired
during the probing process MUST NOT be added to the list of leases
needing to be converted." This makes it a rule requiring explicit
conformance.

Also, where it says: "The advantage is that it is completely compatible
with the solution proposed in section 3.2, which means that the
implementor has the option of implementing either proposal" -- you mean
implementor of the server, right? The implementation of the client is
obviously different between 3.2 and 3.4.

-- Scanner       (scanner@nominum.com)
   Nominum, Inc. | www.nominum.com | +1.650.779.6035

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg