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

Hi Ted,

I am in favour of supporting this draft.

I have a couple of suggestions:

1) Can we add a section which would say what SHOULD be the behaviour on the
client when it receives a packet with the client-id set.
2) Can a clarification be added on what the server SHOULD do when it
receives a DHCP packet with 0 mac-addr and no client-id.

Thanks,
Prashanth.

On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> wrote:

> This document corrects a bug in RFC2131 that forbids the DHCP server from
> returning a DHCP client identifier.   The lack of a DHCP client identifier
> creates a problem in two cases: where the underlying transport has no
> link-layer address, and where two clients are running on the same host,
> supplying different client identifiers so as to present different network
> identities.   In both of these cases, insufficient information is returned
> from the DHCP server to clearly identify the client that is the intended
> recipient of the message.   The only way to fix this is to _require_ the
> DHCP server to return the client identifier if it receives it.   This is
> what the proposed document does.
>
> We checked for consensus in the meeting, and four people were in favor of
> advancing the draft; nobody was against.
>
> I think this is actually pretty important work—it's a lingering bug in the
> spec which I think will come back to bite us more and more as we start
> getting deeper into the dual-stack transition.   So if you haven't read the
> document, please do.
>
> If you support advancing it, please signify by replying to this message
> and saying that you support it. If you think it's a bad idea, please
> signify by replying to this message and explaining why.   If you have
> comments or changes to propose, please send them along, and also signify
> whether you are in favor of advancement with the change, without the
> change, or oppose advancement.
>
> We will determine consensus on April 27, based solely on responses on the
> mailing list, so please do respond.
>
> Thanks!
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>