Re: [dhcwg] Some comments regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-unknown-msg-01

Qi Sun <sunqi.csnet.thu@gmail.com> Mon, 29 July 2013 08:07 UTC

Return-Path: <sunqi.csnet.thu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17BE621F9E79 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 01:07:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WCFjpyURREKN for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 01:07:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-x235.google.com (mail-pb0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 757BA21F9E12 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 01:06:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f53.google.com with SMTP id up15so3697168pbc.12 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 01:06:40 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=sBulFJOZ3XI9gpVPYavNgCeF6rQXUV4sg6xfZ4OyNAA=; b=cTB2xQsC+YoToHlx8+BO6dFS2axOSiD/Sk4+YsE6zv82HncCkbtc7N8I/HNn+u1MOA sqKLGI5zX8reVA/QSF9KuIQdEgdmtN1ALVbo44S3XCmlTID+XrHRG8bhIt/WFeGp3dhS k+cjOOmoNzn7/PEhiNKKf81UzPfP3wPhMi54I0w1AQa5eGvRZHR7KLR/RX5SZ5hwFGiS hn3D4FDggE5Cl7hij9AS5ueGl2atbcvXEIN/CaMzR8JEn9/IwsQKzyVXtAT+8YWPPveA CyG5ZurhOUlMy35IX2UljQgdQtz2oi4tDRTS95/JS6ijfZUZNB0ZAI6/fd3Asb/6rSBA nOwQ==
X-Received: by 10.69.17.1 with SMTP id ga1mr65623849pbd.38.1375085200271; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 01:06:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:df8::16:9284:dff:fef3:d346? ([2001:df8:0:16:9284:dff:fef3:d346]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id jf4sm75504490pbb.19.2013.07.29.01.06.37 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 29 Jul 2013 01:06:39 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-107--506480516"
From: Qi Sun <sunqi.csnet.thu@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFGoqUPOVNOknZFD7JkhOSDqu63VML6iH7yyuA-je-_8W=G2bQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 10:06:34 +0200
Message-Id: <A62A9726-FD37-4715-9073-480187798603@gmail.com>
References: <CAFGoqUPOVNOknZFD7JkhOSDqu63VML6iH7yyuA-je-_8W=G2bQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marcin Siodelski <msiodelski@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org, "<cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn>" <cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn>, Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Some comments regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-unknown-msg-01
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 08:07:44 -0000

Hi Marcin ,

Thanks for the review! 

> It would be good to distinguish between the term "intended recipient" and "recipient". From the context I understand that the intended recipient is used with regards to the target for the message being passed through relays and the recipient is a term used to describe a host which is currently holding a message. Perhaps this clarification could be placed in the glossary or somewhere in the text?
> 
> Consider this:
> "... the message is valid for constructing a new Relay-forward message if the recipient is a relay agent, the relay agent does not identify itself as the intended recipient, and the message is not a Relay-Reply message".
> 
> There is a mix-up of these two terms which may suggest that the message is sent to a wrong relay which is  not an "intended recipient", while the sentence is actually meant to tell that the relay is not a target for the message being encapsulated.

How about the following text:

"... the message is valid for constructing a new Relay-forward message if a relay agent receives the message, but the relay agent does not identify itself as the target of the message, and the message is not a Relay-Reply message."

Is the usage of 'target' here is precise? 

Best Regards,
Qi