Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-host-gen-id-02

[Andre Kostur <[e-mail]>]

I think that if the device wants a PA, it should supply an IA_PA in
its Solicit.  The device needs to specify an IAID.  An ORO is
insufficient.


On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 8:12 PM, Sheng Jiang <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Sheng Jiang [mailto:[e-mail]]
> >Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 1:05 PM
> >To: Gaurav Halwasia (ghalwasi); Ted Lemon; dhc WG
> >Subject: RE: WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-host-gen-id-02
> >
> >Hi, Gaurav,
> >
> >Thanks for your carefully review. Reply in lines. With all your comments
> >addressed, would you support this document forward?
> >[Gaurav] Certainly. I support the document forward.
> >
> >>I like the idea but I do have few comments:-.
> >>
> >>1.) Abstract does not seems clear to me.
> >>This document introduce a procedure for configuring hosts' IPv6
> >>   address which the prefix is assigned from a DHCPv6 server through
> >>   DHCPv6 protocol while the interface identifiers are independently
> >>   generated by the hosts.
> >
> >Reworded: This document introduces a new DHCPv6 procedure to configure
> >hosts' IPv6 addresses. In this new procedure, the prefix is advertised from a
> >DHCPv6 server through DHCPv6 protocol while the interface identifiers are
> >independently generated by the hosts.
> >
> >>2.) Section 1 . Introduction. Change "host-genarated" to "host-generated"
> >>3.) Section 1 . Introduction. Change "separats" to "separates"
> >>4.) Section 1 . Introduction. Change "ingerface identifiers" to
> >>"interface identifiers"
> >
> >All changed.
> >
> >>5.) Section 4.  This section talks about the new IA_PA option but does
> >>not explicitly say that this option needs to be inserted in SOLICIT message.
> >
> >Have added a sentence for this. However, this is only a MAY. "A host MAY
> >include a Option Request Option in a Solicit or Request message to request a
> >IA_PA explicitly." The prefix assignment could be in advertise model. It is not
> >necessary that a host request a IA_PA.
> >[Gaurav] I don't understand this part completely. So you are saying that host
> >can send "DHCP REQUEST" message as well instead of SOLICIT.? Can you
> >please elaborate it in detail.
>
> <Sheng>Yes. After discovery a DHCPv6 server with solicit message, a host can use a Request message to request prefix assignment by include a IA_PA, instead of IA_NA or IA_TA. The server then return prefix information rather than address. In our understanding, this procedure is one way of address configuration, not other information.
>
> Oops... With this, it seems we update RFC3315 a little bit. Maybe we should include an update header in the document.
>
> The above sentence needs a little bit revise: "A host MAY include a Option Request Option in a Solicit or IA_PA in a Request message to request a prefix assignment explicitly."
>
> When the prefix assignment in advertise model, even if a host does not request, DHCPv6 server can push it initiatively.
>
> >>6.) As this procedure is indeed "state less" from the DHCPv6
> >>perspective, why don't we want to use "Information-Request" message
> >>instead of SOLICIT from the host.?
> >
> >Request message is possible, too. See the above new sentence.
> >
> >[Gaurav] I was referring to "Information-Request(11)" message not
> >"Request(3)"
>
> As explained above, we think this procedure is address associated. So, Request is more proper.
>
> Sheng
>
> >>7.) What should the host do after timers expire.? And is the DHCPv6
> >>RECONFIGURE message supported for this option type. I think this should
> >>be clarified in the draft.
> >
> >Have added two sentences in Section 4 to describe the potential follow up
> >operation:
> >
> >When the host reaches T1 or T2 defined in Section 5.1, it SHOULD use the
> >same message exchanges, as described in section 18, "DHCP Client-Initiated
> >Configuration Exchange" of [RFC3315], to obtain or update prefix(es) from a
> >DHCPv6 server.
> >
> >A DHCPv6 server MAY initiatively send a reconfiguration message to the host,
> >as described in section 19, "DHCP Server- Initiated Configuration Exchange"
> >of [RFC3315], to cause prefix(es) information update.
> >
> >Best regards,
> >
> >Sheng
> >
> >>Thanks,
> >>Gaurav
> >>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> >Behalf
> >>Of Ted Lemon
> >>Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 7:35 AM
> >>To: dhc WG
> >>Subject: [MARKETING] [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-host-gen-id-02
> >>
> >>The authors have requested a working group last call for this draft.   The
> >>draft provides a mechanism whereby the DHCP server can indicate to the
> >>DHCP client which prefix it should use for autoconfiguration, for instance for
> >>CGA address generation.   This draft has been hanging around for a while,
> >>and could definitely use more eyes on it.   Please take the time to review it;
> >>if you think it's a good idea, please indicate your support for advancing the
> >>draft.   If you think it's a bad idea, please indicate that you do not support
> >>advancing it.   If you have comments, they would be very much
> >appreciated.
> >>
> >>We will determine consensus on August 27.
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>dhcwg mailing list
> >>[e-mail]
> >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>dhcwg mailing list
> >>[e-mail]
> >>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg




--
Andre Kostur