Re: [dhcwg] Some comments regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-unknown-msg-01

Qi Sun <sunqi.csnet.thu@gmail.com> Mon, 29 July 2013 08:04 UTC

Return-Path: <sunqi.csnet.thu@gmail.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 0948821F9AF0 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 01:04:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Tmff4hamyDgd for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 01:04:28 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-pb0-x235.google.com (mail-pb0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c01::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14FA621F9B0E for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 01:04:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-pb0-f53.google.com with SMTP id up15so3675390pbc.26 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 01:04:11 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=Xl2YMLImOBVkbA+63vPSg5NYYipO6lYQITr/6j2kk74=; b=opWVPI8ZUy8IEiPi9uL0W1a3qvTOnMGMkqihN/M8+7+00A5BUxFeDWG4wSenmOpD0l gIWxQ+8i79W0hs0j5HURMo3OMtsw+yVokNXkazgw2T4FsJ+jUYhMv/gv4M2UHE5tq7i/ +Clc+chrMPhCOmuQjunSbuhBtztGtdGKtnoN28xBr4ipOyYMIP3jy6AzmK0sHPU/31uw MLbdR9zJP45XClIRBXt0CuGUZDQIDLZH6xS1DWerC0Yc1d2rhljql4BhANJdhvxXorHL pbQVCoJ5VJ4b81yol0W5mXjPMprahjTqaP4O3FAJUTMNDfkqkP6qWARYiWWXKuY40aDs FUBw==
X-Received: by 10.68.252.137 with SMTP id zs9mr66098273pbc.60.1375085050636; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 01:04:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:df8::16:9284:dff:fef3:d346? ([2001:df8:0:16:9284:dff:fef3:d346]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id pu5sm10301745pac.21.2013.07.29.01.04.08 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 29 Jul 2013 01:04:09 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
From: Qi Sun <sunqi.csnet.thu@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <51F61E9A.4040105@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 10:04:01 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1CBE1E84-BAF6-4447-89D7-A9AA1B371F74@gmail.com>
References: <CAFGoqUPOVNOknZFD7JkhOSDqu63VML6iH7yyuA-je-_8W=G2bQ@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307752334C7@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <CAFGoqUMLgyVFnhbF7LYhaiFm8HZt3H4T=Oj_014g_U0LcZBD0A@mail.gmail.com> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63077523396E@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <51F61E9A.4040105@gmail.com>
To: Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1084)
Cc: "<dhcwg@ietf.org>" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "<cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn>" <cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn>, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Some comments regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-unknown-msg-01
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: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 08:04:29 -0000

Hi Tomek ,

> Yes, but the message type is irrelevant. Marcin's point was that
> the draft says that that server will never send a message that is not a
> response to a message from a relay, which is not true.

What the server sends out is a Relay-Reply message, rather than a Reconfigure message. The Relay-reply message is the message that in response to the relay agent.


Best Regards,
Qi


On 2013-7-29, at 上午9:49, Tomek Mrugalski wrote:

> On 13-07-29 09:33, Ted Lemon wrote:
>> On Jul 29, 2013, at 9:05 AM, Marcin Siodelski <msiodelski@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> According to RFC3315, server may use Relay-Reply message if it can't send Reconfigure directly to the client:
>> 
>> Right.   That's a relay-reply message, not a reconfigure message.
> Yes, but the message type is irrelevant. Marcin's point was that
> the draft says that that server will never send a message that is not a
> response to a message from a relay, which is not true.
> 
> Note that the draft says nothing about message types. Here's part of the
> text that needs to be updated in my opinion: "A standards-compliant DHCP
> server will never send a message to the a relay other than in response
> to a message from a relay,...".
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg