Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 - Respond by Dec 9, 2013

Cong Liu <gnocuil@gmail.com> Wed, 11 December 2013 11:49 UTC

Return-Path: <gnocuil@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8ADB1AC7EE for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 03:49:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id YJW48gOCTkLy for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 03:49:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qc0-x22a.google.com (mail-qc0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22a]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20F251AC4AB for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 03:49:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qc0-f170.google.com with SMTP id x13so5055800qcv.15 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 03:49:35 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=qvqMCgQ5CFTqFFcaDS2VI01SIJUENaVufLTCliDFmlQ=; b=LiKmStBk91dFW7U/kSvrNknCdE42JVD+Y9IlhCdkLBjgh8BS+/rWZzwJszM+0Ydsqe eSeue7VrwKxJKDCMqjDF3kfJsspIUcmgPFZuvJg1gFh8nYmkLfOSRN5C1qZtnVy5jyfB oGtYvnnLXWxZC1KpUgZcmb0yPjg39NPrkASa4eNUI9Tq2ILH1yZIdg+Jxo6mFIXjTgrU /7PHqenDYCYHla+MlirLgFIM0gTeGdd8xxhjCA2/yjnBWJl8NrZMk+xX2tSwRslPBBNM pLttUIvLs4IT11weGDfwzg1zfUt0KgQvItVC27desR2K83ZaHO0Dg6tbnSIApIUt5mkO gFiA==
X-Received: by 10.49.36.161 with SMTP id r1mr1865786qej.4.1386762575433; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 03:49:35 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.96.161.103 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 03:49:15 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <52A1F8A8.3020200@viagenie.ca>
References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1ADA99A8@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <52A1F8A8.3020200@viagenie.ca>
From: Cong Liu <gnocuil@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 19:49:15 +0800
Message-ID: <CAF+sHxH0c9miyc5piK8f9SCjd8rn34Y6p1-73Mrox5QKQDSW3Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b671d82b2704c04ed40d283
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 - Respond by Dec 9, 2013
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 11:49:43 -0000

Hi Simon,

2013/12/7 Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>

> The major comments are:
>
> 1. Section "4. Architecture Overview" ends before explaining a crucial
> point: what does the client do with the IPv4 configuration it has received?
> For example, when it receives an IPv4 address, does it assign it to an
> interface? Which one? We need a general idea of how this works before this
> section is over.
>
> (Now that I have read the full draft, I realize that this is not discussed
> at all. If this is out of scope, then that means this RFC is not readily
> usable without another RFC describing how to use it in one particular
> context. That could be fine if that's the intent, but then that should be
> stated explicitly in this RFC.)
>

When client receives an IPv4 address, it will assign it because it's
DHCPv4. The difference is to which interface the IPv4 address is assigned.
It's described in -00 version of this draft: "The IPv4 address allocated
from the server MAY be assigned to a
different interface from the IPv6 interface requesting the information."
Maybe it should be added back to cover this issue.

Best Regards,
Cong