IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Very late comments on WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis

Bernie Volz <bevolz@gmail.com> Mon, 19 February 2024 23:17 UTC

Return-Path: <bevolz@gmail.com>
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 E5391C14F709 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 15:17:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.212
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.212 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_HTML_ONLY=0.1, MIME_HTML_ONLY_MULTI=0.001, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=0.001, MPART_ALT_DIFF=0.79, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HfUEOWbOMXry for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 15:17:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qt1-x833.google.com (mail-qt1-x833.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::833]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8181DC14CE27 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 15:17:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qt1-x833.google.com with SMTP id d75a77b69052e-42a4516ec5dso34744931cf.3 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 15:17:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1708384648; x=1708989448; darn=ietf.org; h=to:in-reply-to:cc:references:message-id:date:subject:mime-version :from:content-transfer-encoding:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=Gn3JsN1HEXP9aVqhbHMnLuuNQ1lhi0dw+7Rd/GD1uV8=; b=BiTvyZg2CFpy1ieyZpPf4EvYwcfvtg46OJQoTb1yAZ+97vksCKye56OdjLuDNcCkkt vGIDcyJ9fJhjkhBd40JvbQbSUzjnCGzZDs90YhIqYytVDh7vYK12qOXtJZUoD9ja1ppX s0ecbQ3Qs/w3tbcshWZbArw0VPkklWVurof1nIxT0uC+skDoQa0QndL0urTk5QQdZGi8 Mwz+QwVUg2gGW9eoXT8wIKgz26moEzGTzuDgOsr32UaoqiZoLY3awDTogGzxFnRT/1RM GStQeKp6O/FvYbOfTvEkHrsBGSD0MhuQdzmsFkIZHxjY+QW/Bvu6Sc5Q2AECYq4ft77p bPyg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1708384648; x=1708989448; h=to:in-reply-to:cc:references:message-id:date:subject:mime-version :from:content-transfer-encoding:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Gn3JsN1HEXP9aVqhbHMnLuuNQ1lhi0dw+7Rd/GD1uV8=; b=ASczrbCvhsnrtQHSQI6s/KyeE0UgEBCqstBXoVWVtkDvyETk2+erOoQMuJ6RcGPi0M XZsPhNGL5KCG1KsOjxVrLBgp8mpKZi6HdFZ8Ve52HuYcEawexKFvVKOfHPzwXo7mTRDO LFkjgqMIqI/52OVhENZ5jyXjrzVp8DRG3Wl0kCXVJ3/JWQNNFc6T1IjbNHB/cBaeTMzk t1QLJCKdvP+V4PGcTu3tjnxRvbDvcNm7NLAZWelVyFOVMmWT8OyEqP6Qwdx18laf9Wyf yaoSBaKUR/E0uBOCe4QISpQ3pnVrUTZhJ3Gi8gmu9U098jKk8dnVX/22yBvEfZ59NEh/ mnMA==
X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCUAKOa+FvgbJ05WA/8qwzYM/bE4ynAoBlFFFXoSptULm8ZG2aXgygtt3Qam/PrWJx0N7xZqq0MwC0/B+G2S5Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxLbWB+GCUQqQ/C7U2rMxtfV9MT4FGnruTMQudQI0fxoSB1JkgV lhtZb+Z1LqFJA1Wn5Rji3QS/LiMf+qqIZXXFekZM3px+58fYMRM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFV6VfXTgDl9NJpCbWbdu5mgoLH8rGkDUOzedUMH6OEFNc9+G81Ks/hAMhCVxltyVEeX+3fZg==
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:e254:0:b0:68f:309d:986 with SMTP id x20-20020a0ce254000000b0068f309d0986mr10369276qvl.17.1708384648122; Mon, 19 Feb 2024 15:17:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpclient.apple (d-162-247-8-102.nh.cpe.atlanticbb.net. [162.247.8.102]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x12-20020ad4458c000000b0068f881d0cfasm723575qvu.122.2024.02.19.15.17.27 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 19 Feb 2024 15:17:27 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail-9F7FB90E-853A-4E58-92B5-073AB83C073A"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Bernie Volz <bevolz@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 18:17:16 -0500
Message-Id: <948392A4-BB8F-42FF-AA81-3FACD8DEF01B@gmail.com>
References: <CAJgLMKunSp5-51grZ0R6SAHhXx5Dt1o92p9Ay0NnzKR1yNafsw@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>, dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAJgLMKunSp5-51grZ0R6SAHhXx5Dt1o92p9Ay0NnzKR1yNafsw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Timothy Winters <tim@qacafe.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (21D61)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/mWCDhqVsApzSFtxqAQnidKlfHGI>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Very late comments on WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-rfc8415bis
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Dynamic Host Configuration <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: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 23:17:34 -0000

Might be good to make a new version available before IETF deadline, even if not final (easier to compare against existing for changes).

- Bernie

On Feb 6, 2024, at 8:46 AM, Timothy Winters <tim@qacafe.com> wrote:


Hi Tomek,

Responded in line.
On Fri, Feb 2, 2024 at 9:40 AM Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,

I'm not sure what's the status of the WGLC is. The deadline has long
passed, but I don't think any wrap up was posted. And the -04 was not
published yet. So perhaps it's not too late?
While we concluded WGLC isn't not too late to make modifications.

Reviewing 130+ pages long document is not a trivial task. I have
compared 8415 text with that latest version of the draft and found no
specific issues with the draft.

I do have a small number of editorial suggestions.

1. SECTION 1: Introduction

Remove "temporary addresses" from the list of resources DHCPv6 can allocate.
Agree.  

2. SECTION 4.2: Terminology

The section defines IA mentions IA_NA, IA_TA, and IA_PD. And there's
this text "New IA types may be defined in the future.". IA_LL was
defined in RFC8947. I propose to change the text to:

"One other IA type was defined (see RFC8947) and more may be defined
in the future.".
Agree, this is good idea. 

3. Should we add references to other DHCPv6 RFCs?
The text mentions bulk leasequery (Section 19.4), but RFC 5460 is not
referenced. Perhaps we could add a paragraph somewhere (or maybe new
section 1.3?) that mentions DHCPv6 mechanisms: leasequery, bulk
leasequery, active leasequery, IA_LL and failover. On one hand, it would
make the already huge document a tiny bit bigger. On another, we already
have lots of references, so I suspect there will be engineers out there
starting their DHCP journey with this text.
My suggestion is maybe add these to Section 6, 6.6 as it is an operational model? I agree having more information about leasequery is a good idea. 

And a follow-up question to 3: If we decide to add them, should we also
mention draft-ietf-dhc-addr-notification? Some people feel it might
become a very popular mechanism. But perhaps referencing a draft is not
something we want to do?
I think it's too early to reference that document. 

Any thoughts on this?

With or without those minor edits, I think this document is ready to
move forward.

Tomek

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg" rel="noreferrer nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email