IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-leasequery-by-remote-id

Pavan Kurapati <pavan.kurapati@gmail.com> Mon, 04 October 2010 09:40 UTC

Return-Path: <pavan.kurapati@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8B023A6F6C for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Oct 2010 02:40:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.574
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.574 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.025, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HBUiOb-ALrvB for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Oct 2010 02:40:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 074D03A6F77 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Oct 2010 02:40:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by iwn3 with SMTP id 3so8080193iwn.31 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 04 Oct 2010 02:41:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=M2Jxa+XsCJ+dPS3Zjxjwi8sF6W2z8d/y9PGc5xhs9CA=; b=g8uzsBZr2F8ln3wNe395CDjsG/I3r4T/5JFcG4dWSsGtFVggOc92hGB4SRTH1REOB5 e5sbnQo7ZAuXljvI6LB+G93ymrmUB4JdfUDjBPy4gbPh4buhyqxD9V7xGcdZdbaf8xQM Z0+cc9pFRfHJQ7CZFRZZGonFidriMnceN1w00=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=ij9kmO7AyMM5zRL6dz5Sd5lSIKTkim3s1SoIkXwTq7+1osqdL8S2ZgakDihkWDj2m8 KFWSqediPx1gHdxq/7ltIw/ynAcepRvN3/0OoFsJLfhn442NQbl70I/TpmsA7wNFrlo9 nOb6jkrOdI6cB9RF2+V9VRJapx4hcDG0LuCAg=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.42.6.71 with SMTP id 7mr10573147icz.15.1286185279280; Mon, 04 Oct 2010 02:41:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.42.8.204 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Oct 2010 02:41:19 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <540CBD70-4F8F-42B7-B3B2-5890A21ACDD6@nominum.com>
References: <C76E1A28-B54F-4143-8F74-6E8616F49A67@nominum.com> <20100929004006.GA21974@shell-too.nominum.com> <B917ED76-CA2F-471F-BC47-59E7331D660D@nominum.com> <20100929032903.GA27518@shell-too.nominum.com> <AANLkTim1vUrCOb2dBPL6uN1fGQJAVjoVf9m+kYvMez0b@mail.gmail.com> <C866B408-DB7E-44C8-B32B-4FC3EA1F8262@nominum.com> <AANLkTimxgJBkx9c_a==-c=vn5cH8ymJ8A78hL6=m-Vk=@mail.gmail.com> <540CBD70-4F8F-42B7-B3B2-5890A21ACDD6@nominum.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Oct 2010 15:11:19 +0530
Message-ID: <AANLkTim_3mXzEspvLWFoYb1KmJy1ppB+2HJaTV5sBRhq@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pavan Kurapati <pavan.kurapati@gmail.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: DHC Working Group <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-leasequery-by-remote-id
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 04 Oct 2010 09:40:54 -0000

Hi Ted, Stephen

Thanks for the explanation! I guess it is logical now to make it a
MUST in the client but leave the server implementation as is. I will
make this change and publish the draft

Thanks,
Pavan

On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 10:26 PM, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> wrote:
> On Oct 2, 2010, at 12:15 AM, Pavan Kurapati wrote:
>> Now, we have 2 options. 1) to keep the draft as it is. Servers which
>> have anyway implemented RFC 4388  will be adding associated-ip whether
>> requested or not.
>> 2) Change it only for query by remote ID draft to make sure that AC
>> adds PRL with associated-IP option populated. Server will reply with
>> associated-ip only if it is requested in the leasequery by remote-id.
>> However, server should continue to give it for other query types.
>
> When I talked with SJ about this while I was in Redwood City this week, he seemed to think that even though the base spec requires the server to send the associated IP regardless of whether it was requested, it was a mistake to put this in RFC4388, and it's better not to compound the error in this spec.   I tend to agree with this.
>
> At the same time, I don't think we should make things *worse* by placing a new requirement on the server that it *not* do the behavior specified in RFC4388.   Rather, what I would suggest is that this spec say that the client MUST request the option, and then this spec should not place any requirement on the server that it either send, or not send, the associated-ip address option.   I think in general implementations will send the associated-ip address option regardless, because of the requirement in RFC4388.
>
> My main motivation for saying that we should remove the language in this draft is not that I expect it to change implementations, but that it's a bad precedent to place requirements like this on servers, and I don't want someone reading the draft to get the impression that it's okay to place such requirements on servers, when they write a future draft.
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email