[dhcwg] dhcpv6-w4: optional parts of spec
Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Wed, 15 May 2002 16:59 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA13309 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 15 May 2002 12:59:18 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id MAA12353 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 15 May 2002 12:59:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA11541; Wed, 15 May 2002 12:49:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA11523 for <dhcwg@ns.ietf.org>; Wed, 15 May 2002 12:49:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from cichlid.adsl.duke.edu (cichlid.adsl.duke.edu [152.16.64.203]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA12921 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 May 2002 12:48:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from cichlid.adsl.duke.edu (narten@localhost) by cichlid.adsl.duke.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g4FGlar01969 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 May 2002 12:47:36 -0400
Message-Id: <200205151647.g4FGlar01969@cichlid.adsl.duke.edu>
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 12:47:36 -0400
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
Subject: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-w4: optional parts of spec
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
From another thread: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> writes: > > Hmm. If this message is OPTIONAL to implement, this needs to be made > > clear in the spec. I assumed it was mandatory. I think it should be > > mandatory. If it is not, there is little point in clients implementing > > it. I.e., it doesn't make sense for clients to implement basic > > features that servers aren't required to implement. This leads to bad > > interoperability. > This is a case where the market will quickly punish servers that don't > implement it that should. We aren't even insisting that address > allocation is mandatory, AFAIK, so saying that confirm is mandatory seems > inconsistent. That is, it is fine to implement a DHCPv6 server that only > responds to information requests and that does not allocate IP addresses. > A DHCP server configured to just provide information might not even have > enough information to determine whether or not a client is on the link on > which its addresses are valid. I have a real problem with significant parts of the base DHCP being "optional" Note also that an IESG reviewer (independently) did notice the following: > 1.2. Protocol implementation > Clients and servers that do not use all of the functions of DHCP > need not implement processing for those DHCP messages that will > not be used. > how will this ever do *useful* interop testing? a client/server > pair which implement *no* messages, or a useless but amusing > subset, could pass. If we want useful interoperability, that means that any protocol feature the client MAY (or even SHOULD) be able to implement MUST be implemented by the server. Note I am not talking about support for individual options. But I am talking about support for basic DHC message types (Confirm, Fast-Reply, etc.) I think the spec needs to make it very clear that all parts of DHC MUST be implemented for a server to be considered compliant. If the WG wants to define several levels of implementations (like a non-address supporting mode) that is one thing. But then the document should make it clear what parts MUST be implemented in order to be support a particular mode. But life would just be simpler if the spec just said servers need to implement everything. Thomas _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- [dhcwg] dhcpv6-w4: optional parts of spec Thomas Narten
- Re: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-w4: optional parts of spec Ted Lemon
- RE: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-w4: optional parts of spec Bernie Volz (EUD)
- RE: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-w4: optional parts of spec Bound, Jim
- RE: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-w4: optional parts of spec Bernie Volz (EUD)