Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-host-gen-id-02

[Sheng Jiang <[e-mail]>]

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Sheng Jiang [mailto:[e-mail]]
>Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 1:05 PM
>To: Gaurav Halwasia (ghalwasi); Ted Lemon; dhc WG
>Subject: RE: WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-host-gen-id-02
>
>Hi, Gaurav,
>
>Thanks for your carefully review. Reply in lines. With all your comments
>addressed, would you support this document forward?
>[Gaurav] Certainly. I support the document forward.
>
>>I like the idea but I do have few comments:-.
>>
>>1.) Abstract does not seems clear to me.
>>This document introduce a procedure for configuring hosts' IPv6
>>   address which the prefix is assigned from a DHCPv6 server through
>>   DHCPv6 protocol while the interface identifiers are independently
>>   generated by the hosts.
>
>Reworded: This document introduces a new DHCPv6 procedure to configure
>hosts' IPv6 addresses. In this new procedure, the prefix is advertised from a
>DHCPv6 server through DHCPv6 protocol while the interface identifiers are
>independently generated by the hosts.
>
>>2.) Section 1 . Introduction. Change "host-genarated" to "host-generated"
>>3.) Section 1 . Introduction. Change "separats" to "separates"
>>4.) Section 1 . Introduction. Change "ingerface identifiers" to
>>"interface identifiers"
>
>All changed.
>
>>5.) Section 4.  This section talks about the new IA_PA option but does
>>not explicitly say that this option needs to be inserted in SOLICIT message.
>
>Have added a sentence for this. However, this is only a MAY. "A host MAY
>include a Option Request Option in a Solicit or Request message to request a
>IA_PA explicitly." The prefix assignment could be in advertise model. It is not
>necessary that a host request a IA_PA.
>[Gaurav] I don't understand this part completely. So you are saying that host
>can send "DHCP REQUEST" message as well instead of SOLICIT.? Can you
>please elaborate it in detail.

<Sheng>Yes. After discovery a DHCPv6 server with solicit message, a host can use a Request message to request prefix assignment by include a IA_PA, instead of IA_NA or IA_TA. The server then return prefix information rather than address. In our understanding, this procedure is one way of address configuration, not other information.

Oops... With this, it seems we update RFC3315 a little bit. Maybe we should include an update header in the document.

The above sentence needs a little bit revise: "A host MAY include a Option Request Option in a Solicit or IA_PA in a Request message to request a prefix assignment explicitly."

When the prefix assignment in advertise model, even if a host does not request, DHCPv6 server can push it initiatively.

>>6.) As this procedure is indeed "state less" from the DHCPv6
>>perspective, why don't we want to use "Information-Request" message
>>instead of SOLICIT from the host.?
>
>Request message is possible, too. See the above new sentence.
>
>[Gaurav] I was referring to "Information-Request(11)" message not
>"Request(3)"

As explained above, we think this procedure is address associated. So, Request is more proper.

Sheng

>>7.) What should the host do after timers expire.? And is the DHCPv6
>>RECONFIGURE message supported for this option type. I think this should
>>be clarified in the draft.
>
>Have added two sentences in Section 4 to describe the potential follow up
>operation:
>
>When the host reaches T1 or T2 defined in Section 5.1, it SHOULD use the
>same message exchanges, as described in section 18, "DHCP Client-Initiated
>Configuration Exchange" of [RFC3315], to obtain or update prefix(es) from a
>DHCPv6 server.
>
>A DHCPv6 server MAY initiatively send a reconfiguration message to the host,
>as described in section 19, "DHCP Server- Initiated Configuration Exchange"
>of [RFC3315], to cause prefix(es) information update.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Sheng
>
>>Thanks,
>>Gaurav
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
>Behalf
>>Of Ted Lemon
>>Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 7:35 AM
>>To: dhc WG
>>Subject: [MARKETING] [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-host-gen-id-02
>>
>>The authors have requested a working group last call for this draft.   The
>>draft provides a mechanism whereby the DHCP server can indicate to the
>>DHCP client which prefix it should use for autoconfiguration, for instance for
>>CGA address generation.   This draft has been hanging around for a while,
>>and could definitely use more eyes on it.   Please take the time to review it;
>>if you think it's a good idea, please indicate your support for advancing the
>>draft.   If you think it's a bad idea, please indicate that you do not support
>>advancing it.   If you have comments, they would be very much
>appreciated.
>>
>>We will determine consensus on August 27.
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>dhcwg mailing list
>>[e-mail]
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>>_______________________________________________
>>dhcwg mailing list
>>[e-mail]
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg