Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-unknown-msg-03 - Respond by Dec 2, 2013

Qi Sun <sunqi.csnet.thu@gmail.com> Thu, 28 November 2013 13:16 UTC

Return-Path: <sunqi.csnet.thu@gmail.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 1AA081AE119 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 05:16:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 HWDEXqnvtq9D for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 05:16:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pd0-x22d.google.com (mail-pd0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BE901AE110 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 05:16:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pd0-f173.google.com with SMTP id p10so12010010pdj.18 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 05:16:05 -0800 (PST)
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; bh=Ekmw0Ebw96FBgVzXw9FmqIuMmSXFDlm75+WJRr7mHZ4=; b=00JfNxxx/Dxl42+LTlvSa//imy+QIijBb1PnwPgo6znjibvuVZcP70Iuh/l9VoqjDK aLMSmwCIw7L4T7l8Xb+3ZNtzmmL1+b3TbEGo4dhn+yp2e8jfPgvOO2yOX3EN28Ns1RRp JqU1bC6tu32Glbd+eHse+MPDP3P11zHF5D8QS6/3N1xedCizwkLzWdZtZxVDQfG+iDQQ DZ49PM9SZ0bxzUFbHYwrmSzQR9KAnQZz7MUCdw98G89bkEJ4QjbCXVCffXM2o4KQWiNN k4Jq0JqTLDHDAuE11klcFZFdpaek+A+ETkNozyLnMbbCYjvyGqo6CWez6/ZT0BlPhbiT z+XQ==
X-Received: by 10.68.204.193 with SMTP id la1mr10757802pbc.159.1385644565598; Thu, 28 Nov 2013 05:16:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.199.122] ([166.111.68.231]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id qv8sm95204736pbc.31.2013.11.28.05.16.02 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 28 Nov 2013 05:16:05 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
From: Qi Sun <sunqi.csnet.thu@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFGoqUMh-xT+GsJQNHGUcisqcphAVFZXnQ6ac+GXq76wBBiyYw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 21:15:55 +0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <AC25F22F-A27C-40FC-B4AF-9EA886D973A6@gmail.com>
References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AD98DE0@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1ADC2A5B@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <CAFGoqUMh-xT+GsJQNHGUcisqcphAVFZXnQ6ac+GXq76wBBiyYw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Marcin Siodelski <msiodelski@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "Bernie Volz \(volz\)" <volz@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-unknown-msg-03 - Respond by Dec 2, 2013
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: Thu, 28 Nov 2013 13:16:08 -0000

Hi Marcin, 

Thanks for your comments. Please see inline.

On 2013-11-28, at 下午7:55, Marcin Siodelski wrote:

> I have read the document and I support it move forward.
> 
> Can you please clarify those two issues below? Perhaps I misunderstood
> something...
> 
> ISSUE 1
> 
> In the "3.  Problem Statement:"
> 
> "But RFC3315 doesn't explicitly describe how the relay
>   agent can find out it should send a message towards the server or
>   towards the client."
> 
> I am a little confused. The RFC3315 pretty much solves the problem in
> section 20. The proof is that you actually refer to appropriate
> sections of RFC3315 in sections 4.2 and 4.3 of your draft. Did I miss
> something?

[Qi] Maybe making this sentence only focus on the unknown message types would be clearer. We will work on that. 

> 
> 
> ISSUE 2
> In this sentence:
> 
> "In the case that a new type of relay message is sent to a relay agent
>   but the relay agent doesn't recognize it, the message is put into a
>   Relay-forward message and sent to the server."
> 
> Why "new type of relay message", not "new type of message"? I don't
> quite understand what the relay message is in this context.

[Qi] A new type of relay message targets at the relay agent. If a relay agent recognizes the message, then it should consume the message. Otherwise, the relay just sends the message to the server (in a Relay-forward message), so that the server gets the information that this relay doesn't support the new relay agent message. 
In Bullet (b), the message doesn't take the relay agent as the target. 
If this part isn't clear enough, we can improve it.

Thanks!
Qi

> 
> On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 10:31 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> wrote:
>> This is friendly reminder that we need responses by end of day (anywhere in
>> the world) December 2nd. Sorry for the ‘late’ reminder for those in the US
>> enjoying Thanksgiving.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> So far, there has only been Sheng’s (document shepherd) comments.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> <WG Co-Chair Hat OFF>
>> 
>> I add my support for this document (with Sheng’s comments addressed as he
>> captured my nits and more).
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -          Bernie
>> 
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg