Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-06.txt

["Bernie Volz (volz)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jinmei:

Yes, #2 is our hope.

--

It occurs to me that if this as this is the intent, we might want to discuss whether to add a new "OPTION_T1T2" (or some other name). Reasons would be:
1. It would be a good way for servers to know if the client has been uplifted as including this option code in the ORO would tell the server that.
2. Servers would return the T1/T2 for all (renewable) bindings in this option (as well as setting these values in the existing IA_NA/IA_PD options - servers COULD set these fields to 0 in the IA_NA/IA_PD option if returning the option as requested by the client).
3. Clients would know if the server was uplifted (if it returned this option).
4. It would remove the need for these fields in any future IA_* type options.

I think this idea was raised by someone else (Marcin?) at one time (though that may not have been on the list).

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of ????
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2014 12:39 PM
To: Bernie Volz (volz)
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-06.txt

At Mon, 30 Jun 2014 18:19:37 +0000,
"Bernie Volz (volz)" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> But because we're making changes to the specifications (i.e., revised sections of 3315, 3633, and even in some cases providing text for possible use in the 3315bis work), we are indeed trying to cover all IA_* options (while we hope it includes future possible IA_* options, that is more difficult to achieve as we don't know what those might be).
>
> >Can I assume that this draft tries to provide a generalized specification for all current and possible IA_xx
[...]
> Bottom line is that yes we are trying to accommodate all (existing) IA_* types. And, in general we've assumed that 3315 has handled IA_NA/IA_TA co-existence sufficiently, so the revised text focuses on included IA_PD handling.

The nuance is subtle here, so please let me be sure: which one is
(more) correct?
1. this draft excludes the applicability to future possible IA_XXs
   (i.e., it only covers IA_NA, IA_TA, and IA_PD, and the main
   motivation is the concurrent use of IA_NA and IA_PD).
2. this draft intends to be applicable to future possible IA_XXs,
   even if this is currently just a hope (since we don't know the
   future possibilities right now) and may turn out to be infeasible.

My initial interpretation was #2.  Am I correct?

--
JINMEI, Tatuya