Re: [dhcwg] REMINDER: dhc WG last call on dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-dna-ipv4-07.txt

Greg Daley <> Thu, 24 June 2004 19:51 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA21182; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 15:51:05 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BdXQN-0003st-MJ; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:50:07 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BdKMU-0005JN-0Z for; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 22:53:14 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA10687 for <>; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 22:53:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BdKMR-0005yp-FA for; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 22:53:11 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BdKLS-0005aY-00 for; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 22:52:11 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BdKKV-0005Dl-00 for; Wed, 23 Jun 2004 22:51:11 -0400
Received: from localhost ([]) by (PMDF V6.1 #39306) with ESMTP id <> for; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:48:59 +1000
Received: from ( []) by localhost (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F30A158005; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:48:59 +1000 (EST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80EDD12000F; Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:48:59 +1000 (EST)
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:48:59 +1000
From: Greg Daley <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] REMINDER: dhc WG last call on dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-dna-ipv4-07.txt
To: Soohong Daniel Park <>
Message-id: <>
Organization: Monash University
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Accept-Language: en, en-us
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020529
References: <>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi Daniel,

Here are some opinions.

Soohong Daniel Park wrote:
> This draft looks good and I second it.
> My comments are as below;
> [1] Category is correct as PS ? I think BCP would be better.

I'm actually interested in this as well, but for a
different reason.

> [2] 1. Introduction, 
>>This document concerns the interaction of mechanisms used by IPv4
>>protocol stacks.  Network attachment detection and its interaction
>>with interface configuration is considered elsewhere, for example in
>>Neighbor Discovery for IPv6 [RFC2461], IPv6 Stateless Address
>>Autoconfiguration [RFC2462] and Mobility Support in IPv6 [MIPv6].
> I am not sure why this draft refers rfc2461,2462 and even MIPv6.
> This draft is strictly bound to IPv4 especially DHCPv4 and IPv4LL 
> and something like that, so I think we don't need to refer IPv6 protocol.
> [3] 2.3 IPv4 Address Acquisition
> To obtain its IPv4 address quickly, Rapid Commit option of DHCPv4
> can be used for optimizing detection of network attachment on mobile
> hosts. With my experience, it's stable and fast than current
> mechanism, thus if feasible, you can indicate this utility at this
> section. 
> (I updated and published it as 04 version yesterday)

If the document is a BCP, then it cannot really reference
alternative procedures which aren't RFC's.

Also, even if the document is PS, there would be some
conflict as to whether the rapid commit would need to
be normatively referenced.

A normative reference to another draft which is still to
go through IESG review is probably worth avoiding at this stage.

The rapid commit will be able to indicate the benefits
itself. People will use it in addition to the DNAv4 procedures
as it is a compatible optimization.


dhcwg mailing list