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

[Cong Liu <[e-mail]>]

Hi Bernie,

2014-07-14 21:02 GMT+08:00 Bernie Volz (volz) <[e-mail]>:

>  Hi:
>
>
>
> This is “should”. That allows for cases where a client may want to use
> multiple sessions to different servers. This might well be the case if
> multiple provisioning domains were in play – see section 4.8. But this is
> an  area of potential future work …
>

>
> If a client decides to start multiple sessions, why would it then combine
> the two separate sessions? I think it should keep the transactions
> completely separate (even when reaching the Rebind ‘state’).
>
Agree.

> If it doesn’t keep things separate, it could very well end up with
> conflicting answers – it all depends on what each server knows about what
> the other has and how it responds (respond with “NoBinding”, respond with 0
> lifetimes, respond with “NotOnLink”, …).
>
>
>
> We do NOT cover this since we do NOT expect clients will generally want to
> do this. But there is nothing that prohibits this based on RFC 3315 and
> this draft.
>
>
>
> I don’t know if you are suggesting any changes to the text, if so, please
> provide those suggestions.
>
I didn't pay much attention to section 4.8 and it solves my question. I
think it would be better to move section 4.8 before the IA-related
discussions in section 4, to clarify the scope and assumptions clearer as
Jinmei suggested.

Best Regards,
Cong