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

Qi Sun <> Wed, 27 November 2013 11:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA4631AE112 for <>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 03:14:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 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, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AlQRhFt6t08K for <>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 03:14:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400e:c02::22d]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9529B1AE144 for <>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 03:10:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id p10so9705837pdj.4 for <>; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 03:10:46 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to; bh=4jPQee0EZ61AIkhlM/JSwna89eyNTxD2ARlj/nsaJfE=; b=tlbenKoBSaqLxvAOnA5dtWhW2ga4IM4weo8QoFu5g8lVi2qBWuBjXFrArbbnbrXGcs fmWnUqJpjBL9y27M2K8jty3JK5JfnQYr9HIWJFQcV9ownSpruO/R74Makuqw2wakhiHM BnLom5HAG8UQAwD21lYSJkeyjZrguaekOY6VxL711KAInL860XzvCAJvcMt+Mwqd8Cqh 79xq17+xnv7aZWHuD3bo6zD2IwGL1myhGStamc4pe9SaazhP7mvE/P6b2/OiHMZEEfgC Ypy7PfBFJbRNM1RnKp0TH49qPQJpdenYK4vlvQ2WJRf7I8HV0yoRZgvidaeHDs4Kdpsi qDTQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id y10mr4485550pbb.101.1385550646165; Wed, 27 Nov 2013 03:10:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id fk4sm98775312pab.23.2013. for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 27 Nov 2013 03:10:45 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1085)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=Apple-Mail-2--778484761
From: Qi Sun <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 19:10:08 +0800
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: <> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 - Respond by Dec 9, 2013
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:14:31 -0000
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2013 11:14:31 -0000

Hi Ian,

Thanks for comments.

On 2013-11-27, at 下午5:50, <> <> wrote:
> Section 8, the sentence beginning ‘The client that intends…’ should read ‘A client that intends….'

[Qi] Will correct it.

> Section 8  - Question regarding the sentence ‘The 4o6 DHCP client MUST NOT request the DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6 Enable Option nor the 4o6 Server Address Option in the Boot-request-v6 message’. I think that this text as written is ambiguous.
> Is it meant to mean that the boot-request-v6-message can contain any DHCPv6 option with the exception of the 4o6 enable and 4o6 server options? Saying that the client may not request certainly implies that the client could include an ORO option alongside OPTION_BOOTP_MSG. Is the intention to allow this?

[Qi] The reason I added this sentence was that it's not necessary for the client to ask for the Enable Option again in Boot-request-v6 message as the DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6 function has been running. The DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6 function status should be refreshed alongside IPv6 configuration process rather than DHCPv4 over DHCPv6 process. 

IMHO, the Boot-request-v6 msg and Boot-reply-v6 msg should only be used for v4-related configuration, which makes it simple.  Would it reasonable to exclude the ORO option in the two messages?
> If not, why exclude requesting the 4o6 server option? Obviously, it’s pointless allowing the Enable option, but sending the 4o6 server option within the BOOTREPLYV6 to allow a dedicated DHCP4o6 server to tell the client to use unicast seems like it could be a good idea. What’s the reason for specifically excluding it?

[Qi] Allowing the client to request the 4o6 server address option would violate the Bullet 4 in section 8: the client only receives the 4o6 Server Address option but no DHCPv4 over DHCPv6 Enable option, then the client is required to ignore the 4o6 Server Address option. 

IMHO, we could make it simple: the server signals the client to use unicast or multicast when the client is enabled to invoke the DHCPv4 over DHCPv6 and it's not necessary for the client to change that.

Best Regards,

> There’s also a few other places in the text that need to be aligned with this (the ‘options’ description in Sec 5.2 and paragraph 8 of section 8).
> Thanks,
> Ian
> From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <>
> Date: Sunday, 24 November 2013 23:02
> To: "" <>
> Subject: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 - Respond by Dec 9, 2013
> Folks, the authors of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 ( 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.
> At the time of this writing, there is no IPR reported against this draft.
> Bernie will be the document shepherd.
> Thanks,
> -          Tomek & Bernie
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list