IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-solmaxrt-update-00.txt

Dmitry Anipko <Dmitry.Anipko@microsoft.com> Sat, 02 February 2013 02:52 UTC

Return-Path: <Dmitry.Anipko@microsoft.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE64B21F8D1F for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Feb 2013 18:52:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6RGS6zceGHu5 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 1 Feb 2013 18:52:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from na01-by2-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com (na01-by2-obe.ptr.protection.outlook.com [207.46.100.29]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2586821F8D1E for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Feb 2013 18:52:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from BL2FFO11FD002.protection.gbl (10.173.161.201) by BL2FFO11HUB018.protection.gbl (10.173.160.110) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.596.13; Sat, 2 Feb 2013 02:52:36 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14HUBC102.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (131.107.125.37) by BL2FFO11FD002.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.173.160.102) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.609.9 via Frontend Transport; Sat, 2 Feb 2013 02:52:35 +0000
Received: from TK5EX14MBXC253.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([169.254.3.95]) by TK5EX14HUBC102.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.7.154]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.003; Sat, 2 Feb 2013 02:52:11 +0000
From: Dmitry Anipko <Dmitry.Anipko@microsoft.com>
To: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-solmaxrt-update-00.txt
Thread-Index: AQHN2aLtf97Q/V2yEUWdCx2wJ5mS4phWkuiAgAPtq4CAAAO7AIAEG3nDgANu8ACAAHd7gIAADdqAgABaxPCAAA4bAIAAAv0AgACPRYCAABelAIAAAoeAgAAf1ACAAFAk8IABY85ggABtj4CAADY2AIAADETQ
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2013 02:52:11 +0000
Message-ID: <FB329D818C7CAB438F0C7DD772EA1025061A99BA@TK5EX14MBXC253.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <20121214022919.19971.21882.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAAfac2gCqq4KxCUt3pd5danhhgdPbNCakBXJwGooPx1jyGEmag@mail.gmail.com> <CAAfac2i9f+nA-S6bsoRy58gOn+mj8fnniVPr3PHNgZXboDwztQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAL10_BrnrQbO4Bzq5mE_9s_e1-jtCtb=Nq5wjaUr0mE3fTUv9A@mail.gmail.com> <FB329D818C7CAB438F0C7DD772EA1025061966F0@TK5EX14MBXC253.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63074747458F@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <FB329D818C7CAB438F0C7DD772EA1025061A118C@TK5EX14MBXC253.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307474754C3@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <FB329D818C7CAB438F0C7DD772EA1025061A2F00@TK5EX14MBXC253.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630747475B92@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <CAL10_Bq-zkZv7hD0CVD8notzh2O5gBipLs4ACn3qQQVX8jXQ3w@mail.gmail.com> <CAOpJ=k1vt=ZQS=j-7VPRUYwOOBfO2xe5FR0r6gx3TLtQz8hcFw@mail.gmail.com> <CAL10_BqNqbCuSVX=phGPgJ65cX9L2j0FwRANw8qxDHv=wfW1cw@mail.gmail.com> <510A6327.6050506@s-carlsen.dk> <CAOpJ=k00n2_8DEgQP+bRtLzhGtOL1gy8AyFH4PO2cABQ20PAOA@mail.gmail.com> <FB329D818C7CAB438F0C7DD772EA1025061A471E@TK5EX14MBXC253.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1844B249@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <FB329D818C7CAB438F0C7DD772EA1025061A8A94@TK5EX14MBXC253.redmond.corp.microsoft.com> <1FF595DD-C7F5-475D-93BB-EC7E64428EBD@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1FF595DD-C7F5-475D-93BB-EC7E64428EBD@gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [157.54.51.22]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Forefront-Antispam-Report: CIP:131.107.125.37; CTRY:US; IPV:CAL; IPV:NLI; EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(377454001)(199002)(479174001)(189002)(13464002)(51704002)(24454001)(44976002)(4396001)(46406002)(50986001)(74662001)(47736001)(49866001)(23726001)(54356001)(77982001)(59766001)(56776001)(47976001)(51856001)(33656001)(47446002)(50466001)(74502001)(16406001)(54316002)(53806001)(56816002)(46102001)(47776003)(79102001)(76482001)(5343635001)(20776003)(63696002)(55846006)(31966008); DIR:OUT; SFP:; SCL:1; SRVR:BL2FFO11HUB018; H:TK5EX14HUBC102.redmond.corp.microsoft.com; RD:; A:1; MX:1; LANG:en;
X-OriginatorOrg: microsoft.onmicrosoft.com
X-Forefront-PRVS: 07459438AA
Cc: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>, Bud Millwood <budm@weird-solutions.com>, Lemon Ted <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Andre Kostur <akostur@incognito.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-solmaxrt-update-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Sat, 02 Feb 2013 02:52:39 -0000

>> A client is not expected to listen for a response during the entire period between transmission of Solicit or Information-Request messages

Looks good to me. 

Thanks.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Droms [mailto:rdroms.ietf@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 6:08 PM
To: Dmitry Anipko
Cc: Bernie Volz (volz); Bud Millwood; Sten Carlsen; dhcwg@ietf.org; Andre Kostur; Lemon Ted
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-solmaxrt-update-00.txt

(resending to dhcwg mailing list)

On Feb 1, 2013, at 5:59 PM 2/1/13, Dmitry Anipko <Dmitry.Anipko@microsoft.com>
wrote:

> Agree with everything you wrote. I think several minutes waiting would be fine, and I understand there may be good reasons for such waiting interval (as opposed to hour).
> 
> If there is a general agreement on these 2 adjustments (allowed waiting period cap and INF_MAX_RT default), how do we move forward - Ralph, can these be included in the next revision of the draft?
> 
> Thank you.

Adding INF_MAX_RT makes sense.

In my opinion, the right thing to say about waiting for a response is something vague, to the effect of "A client is not expected to listen for a response during the entire period between transmission of Solicit or Information-Request messages."

- Ralph

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status