Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol-02 - Respond by September 12, 2016

"Naiming Shen (naiming)" <> Thu, 01 September 2016 16:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F90112DAA8 for <>; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 09:26:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.068
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.068 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UMejvMSJ_CuI for <>; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 09:26:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C8BF12DA55 for <>; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 09:26:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=24786; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1472747167; x=1473956767; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=KNim8YTgdDuzcmvkOeQ6o02GnWoOazGS4W2fXqg87e0=; b=FIszRZYO5vk4/5lT/UV/btduj49AVBSQA8iwcuvUFevgd8Mn7lQ2ADXl cBnPsuAUl1qgzZHNoUKyZYPtWso50LjL0VAzin50pEqDBa5EItNBpTpRe 95V3It+faL18Wd5oFFzvILF/qVqTP7MOqDj27P94N+liheyiwrsPSC6QK U=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.30,268,1470700800"; d="scan'208,217";a="142141685"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 01 Sep 2016 16:26:07 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u81GQ73S007485 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <>; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 16:26:07 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 11:26:06 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 11:26:06 -0500
From: "Naiming Shen (naiming)" <>
To: "Kim Kinnear (kkinnear)" <>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol-02 - Respond by September 12, 2016
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2016 16:26:06 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_C3BDB3FD3CC744D29F09B05C8955E370ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol-02 - Respond by September 12, 2016
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2016 16:26:12 -0000


Sure. this document should move forward.

- Naiming

On Sep 1, 2016, at 8:05 AM, Kim Kinnear (kkinnear) <<>> wrote:

On Sep 1, 2016, at 10:26 AM, Naiming Shen (naiming) <<>> wrote:


Thanks for the clarification. Since the two servers using TCP to
communicate with each other and with explicit user provisioning,
I’m wondering this ‘on the same network’ term is needed here.

No, I think that is isn't needed here, I agree.  I
will fix that in the next edit.


By the way, could you *please* either say that you think
this document should or should not move forward?

Thanks -- Kim

- Naiming

On Sep 1, 2016, at 6:33 AM, Kim Kinnear (kkinnear) <<>> wrote:


Sure, we can clarify that.  The "on the same network" comment was not,
actually, about where the clients connect at all.  The "on the same
network" phrase was *trying* say that the two DHCPv6 servers could
communicate with each other.  It is assumed that some (most) of the
DHCPv6 clients will be communicating with the DHCPv6 server through
DHCPv6 relays.

We will fix this along with other comments that come in during WGLC.

If you think this document should be moved forward, please send a
comment saying that.  If not, please send a comment saying *that* and
why you don't think it should move forward.



On Aug 31, 2016, at 8:31 PM, Naiming Shen (naiming) <<>> wrote:

Hi authors,

I have a simple comment on the document. In the section of abstract,
it mentioned the two servers ‘on the same network’. This is obvious true
for the case of serving DHCPv6 request directly from the clients on the
same network. I’m just wondering how does this work if the server is remote
and through some DHCPv6 relays. Can we put some text to clarrify this.

- Naiming

On Aug 21, 2016, at 4:18 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) <<>> wrote:

Hi all,

This message starts the DHC Working Group Last Call to advance draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol-02, DHCPv6 Failover Protocol. This document’s intended status is Proposed Standard. At present, there is no IPR file against this document.

Please send your comments by September 12, 2016. If you do not feel this  document should advance, please state your reasons why.

Note: We are trying another WGLC based on the discussion regarding this document led by Tomek at the Berlin (IETF-96) meeting and the feedback from those in attendance (see

Bernie Volz is the assigned shepherd (Tomek is a co-author).

- Tomek & Bernie

PS: I decided to make this a 3 week WGLC because some may still be on summer holiday and because of Labor Day (September 5) in the United States. And, some may be need a break from reviewing draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-05 for the just ending WGLC (August 22nd).

dhcwg mailing list<>

dhcwg mailing list<>