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

Marcin Siodelski <msiodelski@gmail.com> Thu, 12 December 2013 18:19 UTC

Return-Path: <msiodelski@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EAF8B1ADC03 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 10:19:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.8
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 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, J_CHICKENPOX_55=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_57=0.6, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=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 sfjTh3iiewIc for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 10:19:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ie0-x22d.google.com (mail-ie0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1F6D1AD75F for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 10:19:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ie0-f173.google.com with SMTP id to1so1207655ieb.32 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 10:19:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=CIuXNfVyOGRoAldPqDMk3pNlqNRjNIyNnKVF0u8UPQk=; b=GnJ74X9+GHd5ZFErtjZzUHy6zhTIvLcspQWkqbsDiidcDvw28lkSWFKRuJMWb03EGV 0Ojy59b4s6NYyxffK731gKLghQqYgFygVdNvwl0HXJuhaA/uQbwRJVbrCOKm3OdJ6Fx8 1ywTNzMdqTOWuKhCMYWX1qc+HwZqRT2RnEsjyi0MDSRg60TMDt/JoCe/G4+mM5W69C3T F85csT1C1RoJ2yhYFdsDafjTNEdbhnxPAwjsmpycw0Iycb6XCPjE9Y/K65qI9QprAtcg 1iX8q48REFqLnQPHwmq8/FICh/T6s9Xy8m8CDAUh+0nVIWebafn78HNmZZHFB8TirTUu sztg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.43.8.66 with SMTP id or2mr7578843icb.19.1386872344729; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 10:19:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.50.32.33 with HTTP; Thu, 12 Dec 2013 10:19:04 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1ADE2293@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1ADA99A8@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1ADD590C@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <CE4E8958-57AA-4D87-AA80-F2B12FF1A698@gmail.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1ADDF49A@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <F0A0E7AD-387E-4F9C-8200-4297E79BA566@gmail.com> <0676A81F-E5B1-423C-8233-A5B143908A3A@nominum.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1ADE2293@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 19:19:04 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFGoqUNZMXjNEx8=DhWPuqdmemWNfd6Exr4CtS3_p34sUpnVVQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Marcin Siodelski <msiodelski@gmail.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>, "draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6@tools.ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 - Respond by Dec 9, 2013
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 12 Dec 2013 18:19:13 -0000

On Thu, Dec 12, 2013 at 6:01 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> wrote:
> I wonder whether DHCPV4REQUEST and DHCPV4REPLY (perhaps with a hyphen) may actually be better choices for the V6 messages. While the underlying protocol is BOOTP, that name is somewhat misleading and most everything now uses DHCP[v4] -- yes, I know that I was likely the source of those original message names.
>
I think you were the source of the names, Bernie. And I also think I
was the one who changed the original names to those that you suggested
:)
On reflection, I think we should revert it to something that has
DHCPV4 in it - it is less confusing and it is much easier to read than
BOOTREQUESTV6. I like DHCPV4-REQUEST/DHCPV4-REPLY.

Marcin