IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery-00 - Respond by Feb. 28

Kim Kinnear <kkinnear@cisco.com> Mon, 03 March 2014 16:26 UTC

Return-Path: <kkinnear@cisco.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 C62041A024E for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 08:26:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.048
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.048 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 Ws2eWmCW_cqH for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 08:26:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mtv-iport-3.cisco.com (mtv-iport-3.cisco.com [173.36.130.14]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A83A1A0225 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 08:26:57 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=842; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1393864014; x=1395073614; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=3o/fpMI6fmxMC3P5FeXamSNQ48ORoAMvpMtoxF40+Hg=; b=R9stcr7OoYSqV244D0wPuDpex5Y3ilPJEYdsGmXazTW52KzRCTSUgWvI pWdnXRiQAK/+hgIYb3WdJGRzuQvumwBO+GOjsVrMn9LbTh3amLkasy3PG yE3YrBaldQDdNNN7WMF1mzPhZs/dVy9wULFztnjaWBWa+/BaLkmXu4KVj k=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.97,578,1389744000"; d="scan'208";a="104941255"
Received: from mtv-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.58.9]) by mtv-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Mar 2014 16:26:54 +0000
Received: from [161.44.70.115] ([161.44.70.115]) (authenticated bits=0) by mtv-core-4.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s23GQq0k007098 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 3 Mar 2014 16:26:53 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Kim Kinnear <kkinnear@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <22A8DA03-3E03-4B14-98ED-7CF1BF92C08A@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 11:26:52 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0AD323D7-1C89-455A-ACFE-34F999BA46E3@cisco.com>
References: <52FA8A40.8020703@gmail.com> <9701A42A-6369-455F-BB1B-606C9B8B7521@gmx.com> <abe550dc.00000a14.000001c0@lew.perftech.com>, <0B2D5DBE-B3D3-4330-B2D6-00E8E29818C9@pt.net> <22A8DA03-3E03-4B14-98ED-7CF1BF92C08A@cisco.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
X-Authenticated-User: kkinnear
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/jUwc3Zcw4lhx9dcDm_rQS_rBETQ
Cc: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Kim Kinnear <kkinnear@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery-00 - Respond by Feb. 28
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: Mon, 03 Mar 2014 16:26:59 -0000

I think Lewis is saying that he thinks that it is worth extending the
v4 bulk leasequery draft at this time.  I think he agrees that the
approach you are suggesting would be reasonable.

I think his question is more: Where should this extension be documented?

  1. The existing v4 bulk leasequery RFC with a new draft.

  2. Add words to v4 active leasequery to extend the v4 bulk leasequery RFC,
  and of course change the active leasequery status to "extends v4 bulk
  leasequery".

#1 is the obvious approach, but higher overhead than #2.

Regards -- Kim


On Mar 3, 2014, at 11:07 AM, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> wrote:

> Is it worth extending this for v4 at this time? Making it optional (client can request to only send "useful" stuff, server can ignore if it doesn't support) would be ok.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email