Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-21 - Respond by March 29th

神明達哉 <> Wed, 05 April 2017 16:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF28B1293DB; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 09:53:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.402
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.402 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.197, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8mZscyfIGHE0; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 09:53:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AA26D1270A0; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 09:53:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id g195so16294178qke.2; Wed, 05 Apr 2017 09:53:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=DzhD1lhGRkvYl51kWXDcvYlFzloQ7nnTODz5r55xhvw=; b=hMBFTTorLys8Drus7cKIhiBgDxSmBw/k9grSZ4TqxShUMbWbPfKJ0YT8LYm6IN10Gx QIbY7FgEaGVHJNup7ShSMOFzEFfbWCIQ3Z0cDVSlYS4eKWbplX0PEI7Qn4Rc2Gt4pAcR vn+5F0httY7KDWSMR/1jhhUELSecuIYxKANFCdcfDePjt/E0tlj4VOIiH52BGgYFn2Ll 4SJ527/v9V6mlp2m+x4Wnzb8WJ64YGmyorouQVIn92oVHBNa5mb4j548P+908bAKJnrp amaYr3RcUTilKW41n+asc4zq8Wv8G89AtXH3+0j8+ecsU2N8kldWNg7sjg5nldhUGmV1 LRkg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=DzhD1lhGRkvYl51kWXDcvYlFzloQ7nnTODz5r55xhvw=; b=ilCLMJRibxp5rzMmpgnCVSdjQrG8r6K3+nOGd7mTfJqsjdmI5v319rkOiow3xiB52T cU11G1eOkp5c5+FRpJMfndnLi2/nb8Hw1j7Hjvuj74I/eTmAIk4OVX1g8ZDEJefMGVTc OFo3FOVXiZH4/geoI/X6LujKz7UtkZpqwgwQ1Wzjl2rm3jrL7cLCdIaswIpSqmBQlFG1 U4ObFKQEhbamRFHSG/X9RTHaJnqCLBZi9b0tQ/P1KP9auX9+QgwDWfa7jtwQMmKDUEwA ZgV2zRi79d9LJYnc7D7CsX9FhVivyb+Bh9I4I9IkiXx38USsSQWD+Z2M3ICj627uPhn9 kdkQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AN3rC/7SiaV/7u6e48ISwtx8ts0K8pSJ047txRDkHVNm9Oe9r+YCSFuAziIGdupMYixzEbLXt0qULfyXS7z/CQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id b14mr1732830qkg.86.1491411191798; Wed, 05 Apr 2017 09:53:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Wed, 5 Apr 2017 09:53:11 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: =?UTF-8?B?56We5piO6YGU5ZOJ?= <>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2017 09:53:11 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: qcLesk0LoAA6xdpxtjnnqWg1LrE
Message-ID: <>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <>
Cc: Lishan Li <>, dhcwg <>, draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6 authors <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6-21 - Respond by March 29th
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2017 16:53:15 -0000

At Thu, 30 Mar 2017 14:37:44 +0000,
"Bernie Volz (volz)" <> wrote:

> Regarding RFC5652, you will need to work with others to determine
> what pieces are applicable - perhaps check in with Stephen to get
> more clarity on what he intended? Perhaps Jinmei or Francis Dupont
> has some suggestions?

I have no clue on this.  BTW, I guess this echoes my high-level
concern: I suspect the current spec still has some points that are
critically unclear, which you would immediately notice once you tried
to implement it.  If we're lucky some reviewers may be able to
identify these points, but it's much less reliable than findings from
actual attempts of implementing it.  IMO we shouldn't try to publish a
spec for which even none of the coauthors ever tried to write a
prototype implementation (and I know I'm also guilty in that sense).

JINMEI, Tatuya