Re: [dhcwg] Ben Campbell's Discuss on draft-ietf-dhc-relay-port-08: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Ben Campbell <[e-mail]>]

First, as I said in my discuss point, I planned to clear after a round of discussion. I think the discussion is on the right track, so I will clear.

More inline:

> On Nov 29, 2017, at 6:41 PM, Ted Lemon <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On Nov 29, 2017, at 7:15 PM, Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Otherwise, if this is only intended for a specific context, it would help to have some language in the draft describing that scope. As written, I don’t see why a reader that was not involved in the creation of the draft would not assume it to be general purpose.
> 
> Suppose they did.   What would go wrong?

I thought you were using the idea that this was not general purpose as an argument about why we don’t need to worry about people trying to mix relays that implement this with other elements that do not :-)

> 
>> I’m almost convinced by the “same administrative domain” (although I think my “customer owned” cable modem has a relay, and it’s sort of fuzzy who’s administrative it belongs to :-) ). I think it would help to strengthen the language in 5.4 to make it clear what will break if people get this wrong.
> 
> Why would the owner or operator of the cable modem configure it to use a different DHCP port?

Sorry, the cable modem comment was merely an aside, not a material part of my argument. I recognize there’s no real reason for it to use this extension.

> 
> That said, I agree that this shouldn't be stated as updates to documents it's not updating.   This is an extension, not an update.   So sections 3.1 and 3.2 should really be stated as additional behavior for conforming implementations, not as updates to the base documents.
> 

Thanks!

Ben.