Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-host-gen-id-02

[Sheng Jiang <[e-mail]>]

Hi, Gaurav,

Thanks for your carefully review. Reply in lines. With all your comments addressed, would you support this document forward?

>I like the idea but I do have few comments:-.
>
>1.) Abstract does not seems clear to me.
>This document introduce a procedure for configuring hosts' IPv6
>   address which the prefix is assigned from a DHCPv6 server through
>   DHCPv6 protocol while the interface identifiers are independently
>   generated by the hosts.

Reworded: This document introduces a new DHCPv6 procedure to configure hosts' IPv6 addresses. In this new procedure, the prefix is advertised from a DHCPv6 server through DHCPv6 protocol while the interface identifiers are independently generated by the hosts.

>2.) Section 1 . Introduction. Change "host-genarated" to "host-generated"
>3.) Section 1 . Introduction. Change "separats" to "separates"
>4.) Section 1 . Introduction. Change "ingerface identifiers" to "interface
>identifiers"

All changed.

>5.) Section 4.  This section talks about the new IA_PA option but does not
>explicitly say that this option needs to be inserted in SOLICIT message.

Have added a sentence for this. However, this is only a MAY. "A host MAY include a Option Request Option in a Solicit or Request message to request a IA_PA explicitly." The prefix assignment could be in advertise model. It is not necessary that a host request a IA_PA.

>6.) As this procedure is indeed "state less" from the DHCPv6 perspective, why
>don't we want to use "Information-Request" message instead of SOLICIT
>from the host.?

Request message is possible, too. See the above new sentence.

>7.) What should the host do after timers expire.? And is the DHCPv6
>RECONFIGURE message supported for this option type. I think this should be
>clarified in the draft.

Have added two sentences in Section 4 to describe the potential follow up operation: 

When the host reaches T1 or T2 defined in Section 5.1, it SHOULD use the same message exchanges, as described in section 18, "DHCP Client-Initiated Configuration Exchange" of [RFC3315], to obtain or update prefix(es) from a DHCPv6 server.

A DHCPv6 server MAY initiatively send a reconfiguration message to the host, as described in section 19, "DHCP Server- Initiated Configuration Exchange" of [RFC3315], to cause prefix(es) information update.

Best regards,

Sheng

>Thanks,
>Gaurav
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf
>Of Ted Lemon
>Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 7:35 AM
>To: dhc WG
>Subject: [MARKETING] [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-host-gen-id-02
>
>The authors have requested a working group last call for this draft.   The
>draft provides a mechanism whereby the DHCP server can indicate to the
>DHCP client which prefix it should use for autoconfiguration, for instance for
>CGA address generation.   This draft has been hanging around for a while,
>and could definitely use more eyes on it.   Please take the time to review it;
>if you think it's a good idea, please indicate your support for advancing the
>draft.   If you think it's a bad idea, please indicate that you do not support
>advancing it.   If you have comments, they would be very much appreciated.
>
>We will determine consensus on August 27.
>
>_______________________________________________
>dhcwg mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>_______________________________________________
>dhcwg mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg