IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Request for adoption of draft-fkhp-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Mon, 30 September 2019 12:55 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@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 8A9E1120236 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 05:55:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.733
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.733 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 p_cL6sTQQnUX for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 05:55:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.148]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2328A120288 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 05:55:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id x8UCtGtw036081 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 14:55:16 +0200
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 298FC20652B for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 14:55:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.12]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F8622064F6 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 14:55:16 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [10.8.35.150] (is154594.intra.cea.fr [10.8.35.150]) by muguet1-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id x8UCtGda016127 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 30 Sep 2019 14:55:16 +0200
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
References: <CANFmOt=R1yAGLsM-TZKLPfujfmzLyMHRK_8895g17QvdpQ5n1A@mail.gmail.com> <b0d04f8f-da76-7181-6b4c-26da532c477d@gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c5ec1a09-dbe6-fc32-d9da-d2f8abc1957d@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2019 14:55:15 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <b0d04f8f-da76-7181-6b4c-26da532c477d@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/jcSGuNkCgnsGH8xbM51catGBlk8>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Request for adoption of draft-fkhp-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 30 Sep 2019 12:55:20 -0000

Is this a requirements draft, a problem statement draft or a solution draft?

The filename has 'requirements' in it, but there are two sections: 
'Problems Observed' and 'Requirements'.  The former makes for a Problem 
Statement draft.

Its Intended Status is 'Standards Track'.  But typical Requirement and 
Problem Statement drafts are intended as INFORMATIONAL.

Alex

Le 26/09/2019 à 09:42, Alexandre Petrescu a écrit :
> Hi,
> 
> If the question on whether or not adoption is supported, then my answer 
> is yes, I support adoption.
> 
> If the question is to receive feedback of the draft, then my answer is 
> this: I support requirement R-1 'relay MUST maintain a local routing 
> table dynamically updated with prefixes and next hops as they [the 
> prefixes] are delegated to clients'.
> 
> Alex
> 
> Le 26/09/2019 à 08:58, Naveen Kottapalli a écrit :
>> Hello DHC WG,
>>
>> We would like to request for the adoption of our draft 
>> draft-fkhp-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements 
>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-fkhp-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements> that 
>> was submitted in June-2019.  As a background, please find the details 
>> of draft below.
>>
>> The draft addresses the below problems by defining the requirements of 
>> a DHCPv6 Relay agent when relaying the delegated prefixes.
>>
>> 1.  Client / Relay / Server goes out of sync resulting in route 
>> mismanagement which in turn results in traffic issues.
>> 2.  Relay rejects client messages due to unknown or stale prefix.
>> 3.  Relay generates messages ‘on behalf’ of the server
>> 4.  Issues observed when more than 1 prefix is delegated to clients
>>
>> We would like to hear feedback from the forum on the draft and will be 
>> happy to address the issues in draft (if any).
>>
>> Yours,
>> Naveen.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email