Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-07.txt
"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Wed, 10 September 2008 15:50 UTC
Return-Path: <dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: dhcwg-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-dhcwg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9A173A6DAA; Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:50:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F04763A6DAA for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:50:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.413
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.413 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.186, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hcHdURkm2Fwl for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:50:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com (rtp-iport-2.cisco.com [64.102.122.149]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82A8F3A6DA3 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:50:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.32,373,1217808000"; d="scan'208";a="20325135"
Received: from rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com ([64.102.121.159]) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Sep 2008 15:50:28 +0000
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-core-1.cisco.com [64.102.124.12]) by rtp-dkim-2.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m8AFoRf2024410 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:50:27 -0400
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m8AFoRPE002152 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Sep 2008 15:50:27 GMT
Received: from xmb-rtp-20a.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.15]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:50:27 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2008 11:50:26 -0400
Message-ID: <8E296595B6471A4689555D5D725EBB2108B1D0D0@xmb-rtp-20a.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <DCFFDDB5-032E-4AA3-95BA-C25F2372E2ED@cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-07.txt
Thread-Index: AckR6g/F9k9k+8prTtWgy48Nm5vURQBcKvaA
References: <DCFFDDB5-032E-4AA3-95BA-C25F2372E2ED@cisco.com>
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" <rdroms@cisco.com>, DHC WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Sep 2008 15:50:27.0384 (UTC) FILETIME=[F1F1BB80:01C9135C]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=4962; t=1221061827; x=1221925827; c=relaxed/simple; s=rtpdkim2001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=volz@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Bernie=20Volz=20(volz)=22=20<volz@cisco.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[dhcwg]=20dhc=20WG=20last=20call=20on=2 0draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-07.txt |Sender:=20 |To:=20=22Ralph=20Droms=20(rdroms)=22=20<rdroms@cisco.com>, =20=22DHC=20WG=22=20<dhcwg@ietf.org>; bh=x9xKAsw+eynV1oCOVIws96lJAIW2IpGQjKvuVxThlbc=; b=A6noU6JO+OCmXa/ZGbVgMF9xjxNJoyt2Wn0oShFhxC8EXZVaA5vk3U1PO6 U2MJ48OU3IBEMtVKb20DjFWTtdnSadd61Ox5+vhHQGa2KqeO9q+Lco8Guizk Mp/XI4JqLn;
Authentication-Results: rtp-dkim-2; header.From=volz@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/rtpdkim2001 verified; );
Cc: "Richard Johnson (raj)" <raj@cisco.com>, "Mark Stapp (mjs)" <mjs@cisco.com>, "Kim Kinnear Jr. (kkinnear)" <kkinnear@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-07.txt
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/private/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
I support this document moving forward, but (oh what a surprise?) I have some nits: - All of the option drawings need to indent the bits count lines by 1: 0 1 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Code | Len | Flags | Suboptions ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ Should be: 0 1 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | Code | Len | Flags | Suboptions ... +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ - In section 3 (and actually all option format sections), I think the text about the (sub) option length excluding the code and len fields is unncessary as that is the norm for DHCP options. It may also be worth identifying the length of the options (minimum or fixed). For example, section 3.1's suboption always has a length of 2? For the section 3 flags field, shouldn't it specify that unused flag bits must be zero (in this case, the entire field MUST be 0). - In section 3.1 (other than the len issue mentioned above), the text uses "P" whereas the suboption diagram and field definitions use "Prefix". There are multiple references to P or "P" field. Also, as there can be multiple instances of this suboption, I think there should be a caution that instances of this suboption MUST NOT be concentated. I don't think the RFC 3396 applies to suboptions, but it can't hurt to make this very clear. For the case where the "i" flag is "1", can this only be used in DHCPDISCOVER? And, in that case, I think there is only a DHCPOFFER response (no subsequence DHCPREQUEST/DHCPACK sequence would follow). Perhaps that should be stated? Or, did I misunderstand this? - In section 3.2.1, as all flags have descriptions for what the "set" ('1') and "clear" ('0') values, shouldn't that be the case for the 'd' flag? - In section 4.2, 1st paragraph: including the Subnet-Information suboption in order to specify the subnet(s) which it is willing to allocate to the Client in order to fill the request(s). Should "fill" be "fulfill"? - In section 5.1, 2nd paragraph, it uses "w.r.t."? Why not just say "as described above in the Subnet-Information suboption format section (3.2)"? In the 3rd paragraph, "Ususable" is used ... This should be "Unusable". - In section 5.4, I think "This message effectively immediately times out the Client's lease(s) for the allocated subnet(s)." is not really correct. The DHCPFORCERENEW is supposed to cause the client to renew, but it can't "time out the lease(s)". That may be the RESULT of the DHCPREQUEST to renew the leases, but the DHCPFORCERENEW does not cause that by itself. (And, in fact the 2nd paragraph makes that clear when describing the DHCPNAK that may be returned for the DHCPREQUEST). The examples in section 8 are nice - for complex option definitions (as this is), they are extremely useful. Again, I support this moving forward and none of the above are "major" issues - just nits to improve the document. - Bernie -----Original Message----- From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ralph Droms (rdroms) Sent: Monday, September 08, 2008 3:35 PM To: DHC WG Subject: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-07.txt This message announces a WG last call on "Subnet Allocation Option" <draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-07.txt>. The last call will conclude at 1700PDT on Monday, 2008-09-29. This document is intended for publication as an Informational RFC. Please respond to this WG last call. If you support acceptance of the document without change, respond with a simple acknowledgment, so that support for the document can be assessed. Lack of discussion does not represent positive support. If there is no expression of support for acceptance during the WG last call, the document will not be advanced to the IESG. draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-07.txt defines a new DHCP option which is passed between the DHCP Client and the DHCP Server to request dynamic allocation of a subnet, give specifications of subnet(s) allocated, and report usage statistics. This memo documents the current usage of the option in agreement with [RFC3942], which declares that any pre-existing usages of option numbers in the range 128 - 223 should be documented and the working group will try to officially assign those numbers to those options.. This draft is available as http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-07.txt - John Brzozowski, Ralph Droms dhc WG chairs _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-subnet… Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-su… David W. Hankins
- Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-su… Templin, Fred L
- Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-su… Bernie Volz (volz)