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

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <> Wed, 11 December 2013 16:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id E372F1AE06F for <>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 08:19:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.501
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.501 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, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lcKRwnXSxFCx for <>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 08:19:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9AB871AE026 for <>; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 08:19:04 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=18139; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1386778739; x=1387988339; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=hqoHXY6+Sm0Uv2H35VbeIXC5fPYGr9sffqJFpOvMbs4=; b=j47zV7N4BYT/81xYVDqEV2H21jy1vnqUdek1ZV2pL007KBU1zwP19Eax RIbz9WBjXyANn2E95mJ+aqNIys2Z7eZhBXO4lEn1bDsZuwRWKAY54jAFy mRHsAGzla3i9nl/KE+msdovHaP1RdJR4JfqBJZzQ1+e04nshd2hvovqHg M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,872,1378857600"; d="scan'208,217";a="6031549"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP; 11 Dec 2013 16:18:58 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rBBGIwkg029596 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Wed, 11 Dec 2013 16:18:58 GMT
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 10:18:57 -0600
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <>
To: Qi Sun <>
Thread-Topic: WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 - Respond by Dec 9, 2013
Thread-Index: AQHO9oTumc0qzwABOkWLVa4A0SsWkJpPKoOw
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 16:18:58 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1ADDF49Axmbrcdx04ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "" <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 - Respond by Dec 9, 2013
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 16:19:08 -0000


What's in a name anyway? ('s+in+a+name%3F)

My concern with BOOT is that people might confuse it with booting, not address assignment. Even BOOTP may not be the best. (I think I may have suggested using the underlying v4 protocol name early on?)

If no one else has any view on this, leave it alone. I just wanted to raise this issue to make sure the WG was OK with the message names.

-          Bernie

From: Qi Sun []
Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2013 10:23 AM
To: Bernie Volz (volz)
Subject: Re: WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 - Respond by Dec 9, 2013

Hi Bernie,

Many thanks for your thorough review! We will address the issues you mentioned in the next version.

About item 2:

2.       I think we should rename the messages to be BOOTP, not BOOT. BOOTPREQUESTV6 and BOOTPREPLYV6 (and Bootp-request-v6, Bootp-reply-v6). (I also wonder whether we really need the v6, but it may help in clarifying this from standard BOOTP packets, so OK to leave it.)

I check the the RFC 951 (Bootstrap Protocol) that defines BOOTP messages. The two message types defined is BOOTREQUEST and BOOTREPLY. In order to be consistent with that naming system, we chose BOOTREQUESTV6 and BOOTREPLYV6 as the new message names in DHCPv4 over DHCPv6.

Would it be OK if we keep the current message names?

Best Regards,

From: dhcwg [] On Behalf Of Bernie Volz (volz)
Sent: Sunday, November 24, 2013 5:03 PM
Subject: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 - Respond by Dec 9, 2013

Folks, the authors of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 ( believe it is ready for working group last call. Please review this draft and indicate whether or not you feel it is ready to be published. Your input is important! Please respond by Dec 9th, 2013.

At the time of this writing, there is no IPR reported against this draft.

Bernie will be the document shepherd.


-          Tomek & Bernie