IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-dhc-v6only-06: (with COMMENT)

Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca> Tue, 11 August 2020 21:08 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr@sandelman.ca>
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 CAFDC3A0C12; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 14:08:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] 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 U7lNeZXaHM9F; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 14:08:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B87A33A0CE4; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 14:08:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8431A389AF; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 16:47:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 6GYfYMF_IpTR; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 16:47:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 51ECC389AC; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 16:47:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id F239F430; Tue, 11 Aug 2020 17:08:07 -0400 (EDT)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr@sandelman.ca>
To: Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com>, Alvaro Retana <aretana.ietf@gmail.com>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dhc-v6only@ietf.org, Bernie Volz <volz@cisco.com>, dhcwg@ietf.org, dhc-chairs@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <CAFU7BASdBLDJu95SEHko=Euih5+zrPKrfwdSn+P99sdS5KPQNQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <159709259716.21004.16588247748099066521@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAFU7BASdBLDJu95SEHko=Euih5+zrPKrfwdSn+P99sdS5KPQNQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 17:08:07 -0400
Message-ID: <9525.1597180087@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/m4rFfgUJYTNF8n6DJ2XC5uz2Nd4>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-dhc-v6only-06: (with COMMENT)
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: Tue, 11 Aug 2020 21:08:43 -0000

Jen Linkova <furry13@gmail.com> wrote:
    >> I have several comments that I believe are borderline DISCUSS-worthy because
    >> collectively they result in the specification not being clear.
    >> However, I have

It seems like you should have just ballotted DISCUSS then :-)

    > To be honest I'm a bit confused there. The paragraph you quote
    > explains why DHCPv4 shouldn't be delayed until the host confirms IPv6
    > reachability.

I was also confused by your comments.
How can we make the text not-confuse here?  We are probably too close to the
text to come up with a useful answer.

    > Re: the strict definition of what the network attachment event is..
    > I've checked rfc4957 and rfc4135 and surprisingly that term is not
    > explicitly defined.

I was going to say that we had an entire WG on this topic.
DNA == Detecting Network Attachment.

RFC4135, says in it's abstract:
         In
   this memo, this procedure is called Detecting Network Attachment
   (DNA).

RFC4957 is titled:
   Link-Layer Event Notifications for Detecting Network Attachments

But, it is true, "network attachment event" is not specified as a term.
I suggest we ask 6man and v6ops if we should use a different term,
or if this term is clear enough.  I can do that later tonight if this is useful.

--
]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh networks [
]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        |    IoT architect   [
]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on rails    [

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email