Return-Path: 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 AC05F1241FC for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 15:00:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -4.219 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no 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 LDj5421XrhUE for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 15:00:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net [130.76.184.178]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53A2D128D19 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 15:00:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id v51M0SRm029632; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 15:00:28 -0700 Received: from XCH15-06-12.nw.nos.boeing.com (xch15-06-12.nw.nos.boeing.com [137.136.239.221]) by phx-mbsout-01.mbs.boeing.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTP id v51M0HTD029438 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Thu, 1 Jun 2017 15:00:17 -0700 Received: from XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:eede::8988:eede) by XCH15-06-12.nw.nos.boeing.com (2002:8988:efdd::8988:efdd) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 15:00:15 -0700 Received: from XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.238.222]) by XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com ([137.136.238.222]) with mapi id 15.00.1263.000; Thu, 1 Jun 2017 15:00:15 -0700 From: "Templin, Fred L" To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" , "dhcwg@ietf.org" CC: Ralph Droms Thread-Topic: WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-08 - Respond by June 6th, 2017 Thread-Index: AdLaLlsd9IiMjy2OQmywHG+6QlpKqwA8vRmQ Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2017 22:00:15 +0000 Message-ID: <10034afddcf44c2f9f26dcf7b2194d6e@XCH15-06-08.nw.nos.boeing.com> References: <8083bab53ebb474b9fef05fea5fcbdd2@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> In-Reply-To: <8083bab53ebb474b9fef05fea5fcbdd2@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted x-originating-ip: [137.136.248.6] Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_10034afddcf44c2f9f26dcf7b2194d6eXCH150608nwnosboeingcom_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-TM-AS-MML: disable Archived-At: Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-08 - Respond by June 6th, 2017 X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2017 22:00:37 -0000 --_000_10034afddcf44c2f9f26dcf7b2194d6eXCH150608nwnosboeingcom_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Bernie, I read the entire document, and have only one comment. In section 18.3, the sentence: "The server must be aware of the recommendations on packet sizes and the use of fragmentation in Section 5 of [RFC2460]." Suggest changing this to: "The server must honor the recommendations on packet sizes and the use of fragmentation in Section 5 of [RFC2460]." Also, this same sentence appears a second time in Section 18.3.9. Since Section 18.3 already applies to all server response message types, I believ= e this duplicate sentence in Section 18.3.9 is redundant and could be removed= . I have no other comments. IMHO, the document is ready for advancement pending the resolution of the above. Thanks - Fred From: dhcwg [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernie Volz (volz) Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 9:54 AM To: dhcwg@ietf.org Cc: Ralph Droms Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-08 - Respond by Jun= e 6th, 2017 Importance: High Hi: Tomek and I decided to extend the WGLC by about a week (to June 6th) in the= hopes of soliciting more feedback. Please take some time to review this document as this work is a critical pr= oduct of the DHC WG! - Bernie From: dhcwg [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernie Volz (volz) Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2017 10:53 AM To: dhcwg@ietf.org Cc: Ralph Droms > Subject: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-08 - Respond by May 30t= h, 2017 Hello: The co-authors believe that all of the issues reported for the last August = WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-05 have now been resolved. But, because o= f the large number of changes, the DHC WG co-chairs feel another "WGLC" is = appropriate. Please review this document and provide your comments and whether you suppo= rt the document moving forward by May 30th, 2017. The DHC WG co-chairs will= again ask Ralph to evaluate the responses. We are doing a 3 week WGLC as t= he document is rather large and important to get right! Please see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-08. If you'd like to see the differences from the 05 version, use the diff tool= at https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff: https://tools.ietf.org//rfcdiff?url1=3Dhttps://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf= -dhc-rfc3315bis-08.txt&url2=3Dhttps://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3= 315bis-05.txt The list of issues we recorded and action/assignee details are at https://d= ocs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1c3obOwmRQDldw0u_kv85B5Q4LnjnmvUp2MmsHDGmW98 = (some additional issues are in https://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/= report). One very recent change to highlight is https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ie= tf-dhc-rfc3315bis-08#section-18.2.12 - this was to address a criticism that= DHCPv6 is not responsive enough for some network configuration changes. The co-authors thank those that reviewed this document during the previous = WGLC and hope that those same reviewers (and hopefully more) will endeavor = to do one more thorough review of the document. - Tomek & Bernie --_000_10034afddcf44c2f9f26dcf7b2194d6eXCH150608nwnosboeingcom_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Bernie,<= /span>

 

I read the entire docu= ment, and have only one comment. In section 18.3, the

sentence:

 

  “The serv= er must be aware of the recommendations on packet sizes and the<= /span>

    use= of fragmentation in Section 5 of [RFC2460].”

 

Suggest changing this = to:

 

  “The serv= er must honor the recommendations on packet sizes and the=

    use= of fragmentation in Section 5 of [RFC2460].”

 

Also, this same senten= ce appears a second time in Section 18.3.9. Since

Section 18.3 already a= pplies to all server response message types, I believe

this duplicate sentenc= e in Section 18.3.9 is redundant and could be removed.

 

I have no other commen= ts. IMHO, the document is ready for advancement

pending the resolution= of the above.

 

Thanks - Fred

 

 

From: dhcwg [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] <= b>On Behalf Of Bernie Volz (volz)
Sent: Wednesday, May 31, 2017 9:54 AM
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Cc: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-08 - Respond= by June 6th, 2017
Importance: High

 

Hi:<= /p>

 

Tomek and I decided to= extend the WGLC by about a week (to June 6th) in the hopes of s= oliciting more feedback.

 

Please take some time = to review this document as this work is a critical product of the DHC WG!

 

-&nb= sp;         Bernie

 

From: dhcwg [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Bernie Volz (volz)
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2017 10:53 AM
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Cc: Ralph Droms <rdroms.= ietf@gmail.com>
Subject: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-08 - Respond by = May 30th, 2017

 

Hello:

 

The co-authors believe that all of the issues report= ed for the last August WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-05 have now been r= esolved. But, because of the large number of changes, the DHC WG co-chairs = feel another “WGLC” is appropriate.

 

Please review this document and provide your comment= s and whether you support the document moving forward by May 30th, 2017. The DHC WG co-chairs will again ask Ralph to evaluate the response= s. We are doing a 3 week WGLC as the document is rather large and important to get right!

 

Please see https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-08.

 

If you’d like to see the differences from the = 05 version, use the diff tool at https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff:

 

https://tools.ietf.org/= /rfcdiff?url1=3Dhttps://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-08.txt&= amp;url2=3Dhttps://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-05.txt

 

The list of issues we recorded and action/assignee d= etails are at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1c3obOwmRQDldw0u_kv85B5Q4LnjnmvUp2Mm= sHDGmW98 (some additional issues are in https://trac= .tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/report).

 

One very recent change to highlight is https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-08#section-18.2.12 – this was to address a criticism that DHCPv6 is not responsive eno= ugh for some network configuration changes.

 

The co-authors thank those that reviewed this docume= nt during the previous WGLC and hope that those same reviewers (and hopeful= ly more) will endeavor to do one more thorough review of the document.=

 

-     &= nbsp;    Tomek & Bernie

--_000_10034afddcf44c2f9f26dcf7b2194d6eXCH150608nwnosboeingcom_--