Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp-03

[Dave Thaler <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Dave
> Thaler
> Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 12:19 PM
> To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
> Cc: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [pcp] WGLC on draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp-03
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [e-mail]
> > [mailto:[e-mail]]
> > Sent: Friday, July 27, 2012 2:01 AM
> > To: Dave Thaler; [e-mail]
> > Cc: [e-mail]
> > Subject: RE: WGLC on draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp-03
> >
> > Dear Dave,
> >
> > Thank you for the review.
> >
> > Please see inline.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Med
> >
> > >-----Message d'origine-----
> > >De : [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de
> > >Dave Thaler Envoyé : jeudi 26 juillet 2012 23:32 À : [e-mail] Cc :
> > >[e-mail] Objet : Re: [pcp] WGLC on draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp-03
> > >
> > >Here's my personal comments on draft -03...  I have a few editorial
> > >nits I'll just send to the authors.
> > >
> > >1) I agree with the conclusion of the rationale but the sentence
> > >     "DHC WG's position is this flexibility have some drawbacks such
> > >as inducing
> > >     errors."
> > >   isn't intelligible.   What does "inducing errors" mean?
> > >Either explain or remove.
> >
> > Med: This is point is discussed in detail here:
> > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-
> > ietf-dhc-option-guidelines-08#section-7. Would you be fine if we add a
> reference to that draft?
> 
> Yes, good idea.
> 
> > >2) The text on what to do with a name conveyed in an option is
> > >duplicated in
> > >    Section 4.2 and 5.2.   I'd prefer that this be specified
> > >only once, to avoid
> > >    opportunities for discrepancies.   That is, section 4.2's
> > >first two paragraphs are
> > >    fine, as are the first 1 1/2 paragraphs of 5.2, since those are
> > >about how to get
> > >    the name out of the option.    The rest isn't DHCPv4 or
> > >DHCPv6 specific and
> > >    should be in its own subsection.
> >
> > Med: There is some duplication there but it does not harm IMHO. I
> > prefer to maintain the text as it is.
> 
> I think it does harm.   The fact that the text is not identical means that
> a reader might interpret them differently, and have different implementations
> with different behavior.   That would not be correct.   So I think it's safest
> to have only one copy of the text.
> 
> Do others have an opinion on this?
> 
> > >3) Re "It is RECOMMENDED to associate a validity lifetime with any
> > >address
> > >    resulting from resolving the Name".  The text should be more
> > >specific about
> > >    what the validity lifetime should be.   If the name is
> > >resolved in DNS, I'd
> > >    say the validity lifetime should be the TTL of the DNS record.
> > >
> >
> > Med: I updated the text as follows:
> >
> >    It is RECOMMENDED to associate a validity lifetime (e.g., TTL of DNS
> >    record if the Name is resolved using DNS) with any address resulting
> >    from resolving the Name conveyed in a OPTION_PCP_SERVER DHCPv4
> option
> >    when stored in a local name resolution cache.
> >
> > Is this better?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> > >4) Re "When an
> > >      application issues a PCP request to a PCP Server, the source
> > >address
> > >      of the request MUST be among those assigned on the interface to
> > >which
> > >      the destination PCP Server is bound.
> > >
> > >   This doesn't belong in a DHCP-specific document, it's out
> > >of scope.   That's
> > >   the job of the pcp-base spec.
> >
> > Med: I removed that sentence.
> >
> > >5) Same as point 4, but for all of section 6.  In my view it belongs
> > >either in
> > >   pcp-base or perhaps more likely in a separate spec that's not DHCP
> > >specific.
> > >   E.g., if I manually configure one or more names, the same behavior
> > >should apply.
> >
> > Med: Dave, Section 6 is there because you requested it: see
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pcp/current/msg01793.html. Since
> > we have the text now, I vote for keeping it. No need to create another
> > dependency with another document to come.
> 
> Thanks for the reminder and the pointer.   I agree that this spec needs to
> say something.  My preference would be to separate it into something
> non-DHCP specific.   But you're right about that possibly delaying the doc.
> So I'd suggest the following:
> 
> 1) Introduce a section header called something like "Use of PCP Server Names"
> 2) Make the section start with an introductory sentence saying this section
>    is applicable to any mechanism that configures server names, not just DHCP.
>    The first sentence of section 6 is a partial starting point for that.
> 3) Move the text I mentioned in point 2 (that I didn't want duplicated) to
>     a subsection of it, since that text isn't necessarily DHCP specific either.
> 4) Move section 6 under the "Use of PCP Server Names" section.
> 
> This allows any other future name configuration mechanism (CLI, SNMP, YANG,
> or whatever else) to reference a single section of this document, which has all
> the non-DHCP-specific content under it.
> 
> > >6) Section 5.2 says:
> > >      "The DHCPv4 client MUST verify that the
> > >     option length does not exceed 255 octets [RFC1035])."
> > >
> > >   What does this mean?   The length field is only 1 byte so
> > >cannot contain
> > >   a value larger than 255 anyway.   So what exactly is a
> > >client supposed to
> > >   "verify" here?
> >
> > Med: The text does not talk about the length of the field but the value it
> carries.
> 
> I was talking about the value.
> See the exchange between Bernie and I for what this needs to say instead.
> 
> > >
> > >-Dave
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> > >Behalf Of Dave
> > >> Thaler
> > >> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 2:21 PM
> > >> To: [e-mail]
> > >> Cc: [e-mail]
> > >> Subject: [pcp] WGLC on draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp-03
> > >>
> > >> As discussed at last IETF, the authors believe that all
> > >issues raised so far have
> > >> been addressed.  No new issues have been raised since then,
> > >so this message
> > >> begins a Working Group Last Call on draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp-03.
> > >>
> > >> This call would normally conclude in two weeks but that is
> > >during IETF week, so
> > >> the last call is extended to conclude at the end of IETF (as
> > >of the Friday PCP
> > >> meeting).
> > >>
> > >> We also agreed in Vancouver that this last call will be
> > >cross-posted to the DHC
> > >> list, hence cc'ing the DHC WG.
> > >>
> > >> We need at least 5 reviewers.  Please send comments to the list.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> -Dave Thaler
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> pcp mailing list
> > >> [e-mail]
> > >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
> > >
> > >
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >pcp mailing list
> > >[e-mail]
> > >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp
> > >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pcp mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp