Re: [dhcwg] [Int-dir] Intdir early review of draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-10

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <> Wed, 01 November 2017 13:27 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8AC6313F87C; Wed, 1 Nov 2017 06:27:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.52
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 SzlW7gHbgUyc; Wed, 1 Nov 2017 06:27:16 -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 D957713942F; Wed, 1 Nov 2017 06:27:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=2227; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1509542836; x=1510752436; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=FUU2GCXSXhlfDSwfF7kRLUFw4wxQT5goZWOA4I9l0jc=; b=CCwad0F6rYYJ3vJeiJ+0fPRHgYlN5kCynMwl9yV6qN8gEm60KpYJy//k TxFTHP/v6UphElAjv2gTowpHvhVoqOTRiMWjXjnDSpMwLIO9THNpWqNdV NA0qLeAEo76EIAiK286ApT/2WL4dnSssD3kc28vUGxHQ3GpvTJJ8I0q7S I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.44,327,1505779200"; d="scan'208";a="24666129"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 01 Nov 2017 13:27:15 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vA1DRFOA023005 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 1 Nov 2017 13:27:15 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Wed, 1 Nov 2017 08:27:14 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Wed, 1 Nov 2017 08:27:14 -0500
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <>
To: Zhen Cao <>, "" <>
CC: "" <>, "" <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [Int-dir] Intdir early review of draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-10
Thread-Index: AQHTUuS5t0NJ+fIQ4E2BcQoavKk7AqL/glXQ
Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2017 13:27:14 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [Int-dir] Intdir early review of draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-10
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2017 13:27:17 -0000

Hi Zhen:

First, thanks for the Int-Dir review.

Regarding your comment, the cases where both MRC and MRD are zero is for a Solicit and Information-Request. And, for those particular cases, the client should probably retransmit "forever" at a hopefully low rate (SOL_MAX_RT and INF_MAX_RT are 3600 seconds*) to locate a  DHCP server. This of course depends on the RA M & O bits (indicating a DHCP server is available) or the manual configuration of the client (to explicitly run DHCP).

* - RFC 3315 used 120 seconds for these values, but that was updated by RFC 7083.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Int-dir [] On Behalf Of Zhen Cao
Sent: Wednesday, November 01, 2017 3:41 AM
Subject: [Int-dir] Intdir early review of draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-10

Reviewer: Zhen Cao
Review result: Ready with Issues

I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for this draft. These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and shepherds should treat these comments just like they would treat comments from any other IETF contributors and resolve them along with any other Last Call comments that have been received. For more details of the INT directorate, see <>.

This version is quite ready to go, with a small issue that I would like to

In Section. 15 (Reliability of Client Initiated Message Exchanges), I strongly recommend that implementation MUST NOT set both MRC or MRD to ZERO, which attaches a possible risk that the client continues to send this message without
a stop.    So I would like to propose the following change:

" If both MRC and MRD are zero, the client continues to transmit the
   message until it receives a response."
"The client must be informed with a limit of its retransmission behavior, and MUST NOT set both MRC and MRD to zero"


Int-dir mailing list