Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 - Respond by Dec 9, 2013

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Tue, 03 December 2013 11:34 UTC

Return-Path: <volz@cisco.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 31A111AE105 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 03:34:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.502
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.502 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 Tp8oEGJHp_dm for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 03:34:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-6.cisco.com (alln-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.142.93]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BC411AE112 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 03:34:12 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=2213; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1386070450; x=1387280050; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=g4+EcIfRV9xOWgIcm0rgrr9NrVCRLAfxvrcNf8i5A2o=; b=gb4KX6AMiPHldlVCiEXMU3CnKi5jIgC858qtwZ4RS5Xl3C3VH5kyL0/p lCEYUr4QJ+ZhtcnlHhTebgfi3w+zZTIW7Qct2Iy/pvsceWBvZGhAkurxV lzX0qE4r3t+Z5lizWLblWAyGnFEhCEFcwrB9hhFHum3JhHgv5rchn3cOv 0=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AhYFAHfBnVKtJXG+/2dsb2JhbABagwc4uTqBHBZ0giUBAQEDATo/BQsCAQgOCh4QMiUBAQQOBRuHYAYNwSAXjkszB4MggRMDmBSBMJBjgWuBPg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,817,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="3917632"
Received: from rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com ([173.37.113.190]) by alln-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Dec 2013 11:34:03 +0000
Received: from xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com (xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com [173.37.183.86]) by rcdn-core2-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rB3BY3tE031796 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Tue, 3 Dec 2013 11:34:03 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.232]) by xhc-rcd-x12.cisco.com ([173.37.183.86]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Tue, 3 Dec 2013 05:34:02 -0600
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 - Respond by Dec 9, 2013
Thread-Index: Ac7pYNYYaEg536DmSXaLna21+HapNwGZSwcAAADfOVcAHMNogP//vgf4
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 11:34:01 +0000
Message-ID: <EB4A3EBF-B08F-4465-A69B-63325E2E3EDA@cisco.com>
References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1ADA99A8@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>, <3219ECB2-F220-403B-984B-7254677528DE@employees.org> <70E0AB50-27FB-4388-96DB-F46D260E553B@cisco.com>, <77AB54E8-7150-49DC-A9B6-65CFCDA0D28A@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <77AB54E8-7150-49DC-A9B6-65CFCDA0D28A@employees.org>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 - Respond by Dec 9, 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: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 11:34:14 -0000

I don't understand your points here. Your solution is not what RFC 7040 references either. And in fact the dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6 solution is very close to the dhcpv4-over-ipv6 solution as in some of the models it also only uses IPv6 packets. 

- Bernie (from iPad)

> On Dec 3, 2013, at 4:30 AM, "Ole Troan" <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
> 
> Bernie,
> 
>> That's an informational RFC and references (informational) work in progress (which sometimes changes or is even abandoned). That's the risk the IETF acknowledges with such references.
> 
> you are saying that RFC7040 should be updated?
> 
>> If DHCPv4 works "as is", what more do you need from the DHC WG? Use DHCPv4 "as is" - what's stopping you?
> 
> to stop inventing solutions to non-existing problems.
> 
>> We are trying to solve the general problem when all that can be assured is the ability to send IPv6 packets.
> 
> I have asked multiple times for an explanation of what you are trying to achieve, and what makes this a "general problem".
> I don't believe there is such a problem. and not one that makes sense in an A+P / softwire context.
> 
>> We will consider your objection during the rough consensus review.
> 
> I would expect so. note also for your shepherding document that I have threatened an appeal.
> 
> Best regards,
> Ole
> 
> 
>> - Bernie (from iPad)
>> 
>> On Dec 2, 2013, at 2:21 PM, "Ole Troan" <otroan@employees.org> wrote:
>> 
>>>> Folks, the authors of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03.txt) believe it is ready for working group last call. Please review this draft and indicate whether or not you feel it is ready to be published. Your input is important! Please respond by Dec 9th, 2013.
>>> 
>>> I do not support publication of this document.
>>> I believe that using DHCPv4 as currently specified (RFC2131, RFC5107, RFC3456, RFC3046) is sufficient also for A+P softwire tunnels.
>>> 
>>> RFC7040 references DHCPv4 over IPv6. is this working group also going to specify this alternative transport?
>>> 
>>> cheers,
>>> Ole
>