Re: [dhcwg] New Version Notification for draft-dhcwg-dhc-rfc8415bis-00.txt

[Bernie Volz <[e-mail]>]

FYI: I don’t know why xml2rfc introduced these changes, as we used the XML file from RFC editor. Most are bullet (* vs -) and spacing differences in lists.

Maybe it has something to do with I-D vs RFC generation?

Anyway, those are fairly quick and easy to ignore.

- Bernie Volz

> On Oct 11, 2022, at 3:10 PM, Michael Richardson <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> I used:
>  https://author-tools.ietf.org/diff?doc_1=rfc8415&doc_2=draft-dhcwg-dhc-rfc8415bis-00
> 
> 90% of the changes are, alas, gratuitous format changes.
> 
> Bernie asks:
>> Should we remove all text related to even checking for unicast
>> transmissions and even deprecate the UseMulticast status code. I think the
>> only case that can end up with unicast at a 8415bis server would be if the
>> server had been sending Server-Unicast option and is then upgraded as
>> existing (pre8415bis clients) may then unicast … but likely if the upgraded
>> server just accepted the message, there would not really be any harm. A
>> 8415bis client that always multicasts should never run into problems (and
>> thus get the UseMulticast status). The 8415bis server would never need to
>> check if unicast.
> 
> which corresponds to text:
> 
>      Once the client has determined the address of a server, it may, under
>      some circumstances, send messages directly to the server using
>      unicast.
> 
> And I think this is significant, and I'd like to understand why we should
> consider this change at Internet Standard step.  Does it simplify something
> or solve some problem?
> 
> I guess maybe:
> 
>       Use of unicast may avoid delays due to the relaying of messages by
>       relay agents, as well as avoid overhead on servers due to the
>       delivery of client messages to multiple servers.  However, requiring
>       the client to relay all DHCP messages through a relay agent enables
>       the inclusion of relay agent options in all messages sent by the
>       client.  **The server should enable the use of unicast only when relay
>       agent options will not be used**
> 
> is the point.
> 
> (My server implementation never cared, as it was for a PPPoE DSLAM, and there
> were only two nodes on the PPP link)
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Michael Richardson <[e-mail]>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
>           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg