Re: [dhcwg] Reminder - WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-access-network-identifier-02 - respond by April 27, 2014

Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com> Tue, 22 April 2014 06:19 UTC

Return-Path: <jiangsheng@huawei.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D7E71A0089 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Apr 2014 23:19:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.472
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.472 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.272, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nr8NIpLewBY4 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Apr 2014 23:19:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lhrrgout.huawei.com (lhrrgout.huawei.com [194.213.3.17]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A7B11A0092 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Apr 2014 23:19:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 172.18.7.190 (EHLO lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com) ([172.18.7.190]) by lhrrg01-dlp.huawei.com (MOS 4.3.7-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id BFX61252; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 06:19:46 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from LHREML401-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) by lhreml204-edg.china.huawei.com (172.18.7.223) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 07:19:09 +0100
Received: from nkgeml409-hub.china.huawei.com (10.98.56.40) by lhreml401-hub.china.huawei.com (10.201.5.240) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 07:19:44 +0100
Received: from NKGEML512-MBX.china.huawei.com ([169.254.7.206]) by nkgeml409-hub.china.huawei.com ([10.98.56.40]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Tue, 22 Apr 2014 14:19:40 +0800
From: Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Reminder - WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-access-network-identifier-02 - respond by April 27, 2014
Thread-Index: Ac9dZRqkjOSHG0oIQNqdXl8y/gCSiwAaST0w
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 06:19:38 +0000
Message-ID: <5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B923AE3CD5A@nkgeml512-mbx.china.huawei.com>
References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AFF12C8@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AFF12C8@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-GB, zh-CN, en-US
Content-Language: zh-CN
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.111.98.145]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_5D36713D8A4E7348A7E10DF7437A4B923AE3CD5Ankgeml512mbxchi_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/akdu6O8L0-LR0LPC-YxBu4jlRuU
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Reminder - WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-access-network-identifier-02 - respond by April 27, 2014
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2014 06:19:55 -0000

I have reviewed this document. Overall, it targets to solve a real operation issue. I am not knowledge enough to review the requirements and contents for each access-network-identifier sub-option. So the below is only review from DHC protocol perspective and document writing.

The DHC protocol specific description in section 7, 8 and 9 are generally weak. In section 7, it is unclear when the option should be used, which sub-option should be used under what consideration, and what DHC message is involved. In section 8, how the relay agent include these option is intangibly described. Although RFC 3046, Relay Agent Information Option (82) was mentioned in Section 4, the associated behavior is missed. The RFC is not referred too. In Section 9, how server is behavior when receives these option is intangible. Particularly, the response in DHCPv6 message is wrong: the document state: “There is no requirement that a server return these options  and its data in a downstream DHCP message.” This is NOT compatible with existing DHC definitions, particularly, when the newly-defined option is added by relay agent. Some relevant quote list below:

In section 2.2, RFC3046, “DHCP servers claiming to support the Relay Agent Information option SHALL echo the entire contents of the Relay Agent Information option  in all replies.”

A few reference idnits need to be fixed too.

  == Missing Reference: 'RFC1035'
  == Unused Reference: 'RFC2434'

  ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 2434 (Obsoleted by RFC 5226)

  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC normative reference: ref. 'ANI'
  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC normative reference: ref. 'SMI'
  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC normative reference: ref. 'TS23003'
  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC normative reference: ref. 'TS23203'
  -- Possible downref: Non-RFC normative reference: ref. 'TS23402'

Regards,

Sheng

From: dhcwg [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernie Volz (volz)
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2014 9:28 PM
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: [dhcwg] Reminder - WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-access-network-identifier-02 - respond by April 27, 2014

Friendly reminder regarding this WGLC. There has been no feedback so far.


-        Bernie

From: Bernie Volz (volz)
Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2014 10:04 AM
To: dhcwg@ietf.org<mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-access-network-identifier-02 - respond by April 27, 2014


Folks, the authors of draft-ietf-dhc-access-network-identifier (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-access-network-identifier-02)

feel it's ready for work group last call. Please review this draft and indicate whether or not you feel it is ready to be published.



At the time of this writing, there is no IPR reported against this draft. Please see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg14143.html for a reminder regarding IPR disclosure requirements.



Tomek and I will evaluate consensus after April 27, 2014.



Thanks,

Bernie & Tomek