IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-00

Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org> Mon, 20 August 2012 12:44 UTC

Return-Path: <ichiroumakino@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 3A68921F862A for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 05:44:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id rFX9YdbA3ISP for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 05:44:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ey0-f172.google.com (mail-ey0-f172.google.com [209.85.215.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57A6321F8618 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 05:44:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by eaai11 with SMTP id i11so1848764eaa.31 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 05:44:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=xVwDePD2xnFgV04AbqXRk0vHgJ4voxdQqlzmV8c+N0o=; b=BG1D3m5YUeymGA83GZNxeu0aVe/ikkcl+Lf34oJxztAu93iPV4hZjvUgIQ7WcCu/yA kdqxSjwYlNJNblI+YlarWvNEsXDQ5D4Fy/FHC3ic+JVPaoQ69eWrPYTtfqA5THZu39Uq JZdxH5x7G15kA8J1Zz+b8V4m1X91qMaX8IAaHRZ7GxE36fy7ttY/TWNQTd9XOO3Fxo9H iw7TM39N+GSQUWrN8olMd8FphCj9LFbIptOzv+WqbPGXXr3QX83FmBWWG6awxVENED8P hL3uctZA9yLHG9Sp70NLURO0c6DZCznri4cBgNiwaykbMdWb+7268vKGP3DT9xTEQTc1 fATw==
Received: by 10.14.202.66 with SMTP id c42mr8672583eeo.35.1345466678244; Mon, 20 Aug 2012 05:44:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2001:420:44ff:fd17:745e:d5e9:8e39:416b? ([2001:420:44ff:fd17:745e:d5e9:8e39:416b]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v3sm15709122eep.10.2012.08.20.05.44.34 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 20 Aug 2012 05:44:37 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: Ole Troan <ichiroumakino@gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_0BBA1E40-E7EA-4AF3-9333-59D82D48495A"; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha1"
From: Ole Trøan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <01634C66-161A-4C56-BD24-2F2180581D98@nominum.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 14:44:31 +0200
Message-Id: <A5CD8E90-D939-42EE-91FB-7A364B7BE10B@employees.org>
References: <0AE8374B-0E04-48FF-B71D-2EE8FAAC9ED1@nominum.com> <93E6DE37-FD02-42BC-B4E9-DF0BBCD06C02@nominum.com> <74DBBDC4-9827-4141-AB37-AE9256ACFF15@employees.org> <01634C66-161A-4C56-BD24-2F2180581D98@nominum.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
Cc: dhc WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-00
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 12:44:40 -0000

Ted,

>> could we go forward with this draft that clarifies how multiple stateful options work in a single session, and with the general assumption that a client will choose one DHCP server and that server is authoritative?
> 
> My concern is that if you do so, it will essentially result in clients standardizing on whatever behavior you specify, and so whether we write another standard or not, it will not be available in practice.

to turn the question around.
is there anyone who thinks that we should _not_ make multiple stateful options work in a single DHCP session?

cheers,
Ole

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email