RE: [dhcwg] WG last calls on several WG documents

David:

>I would like to again thank the authors of the leasequery draft
>for not only simplifying the message compared to the previous
>version, but /over/simplifying it beyond what I thought was
>reasonable to ask for (a defined drop order minus the bulk query,
>and only one or two fewer query types would have been OK by me).
>
>Anyway, my day job's work backlog thanks you.

The problem was that:
- QUERY_BY_LINK was a bulk query. So, it clearly had to go without some
means to return lots of data.
- QUERY_BY_PREFIX, as defined, was also capable of returning many
clients worth of data. And, the QUERY_BY_ADDRESS that remains now will
return the client that either has been delegated the prefix containing
the query address or was statefully assigned the address. This was a
beneficial change for Relay Agents that might need to restore
information after a reboot, since they're more likely to see traffic for
an address and need to know whether a client has it (or a prefix)
leased.
- QUERY_BY_REMOTE_ID could probably have stayed, but one concern is that
if the remote id isn't unique to a client (for example, it is a switch
port, which could have different clients plugged into it at different
times), we're back to the multiple client issue.
- QUERY_BY_DEVICE_ID required another draft which was never submitted
and has been dropped at this time. So, without that other work, it
didn't make sense to include it. Depending on the device id and its
uniqueness, it too potentially could return multiple clients.

That leaves QUERY_BY_CLIENTID and given that we were also asked to keep
the usage model to DHCPv6 devices (aka relay agents), it hardly seemed
likely that these devices would need that query.

Note that we didn't cut as much as we could have since the underlying
structure to add additional queries in the future does still exist. So,
if someone wants to add some back, write a draft ...

- Bernie 

-----Original Message-----
From: David W. Hankins [mailto:David_Hankins@isc.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2006 12:19 PM
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WG last calls on several WG documents

On Tue, Nov 21, 2006 at 06:30:32AM -0500, Ralph Droms wrote:
> The first four of these documents are:
> 
> draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-agentopt-delegate-01
>   DHCPv6 Relay Agent Assignment Notification (RAAN) Option
> 
> draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-ero-00
>   DHCPv6 Relay Agent Echo Request Option
> 
> draft-ietf-dhc-dhcvp6-leasequery-00
>   DHCPv6 Leasequery

I have read and support taking these three drafts to WG last
call.

Note that I have omitted the SRSN draft, which I have not had time
to read carefully through its revisions.

I would like to again thank the authors of the leasequery draft
for not only simplifying the message compared to the previous
version, but /over/simplifying it beyond what I thought was
reasonable to ask for (a defined drop order minus the bulk query,
and only one or two fewer query types would have been OK by me).

Anyway, my day job's work backlog thanks you.

-- 
David W. Hankins	"If you don't do it right the first time,
Software Engineer		you'll just have to do it again."
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.	-- Jack T. Hankins

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg