Re: [dhcwg] Intdir last call review of draft-ietf-dhc-slap-quadrant-08
CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO <cjbc@it.uc3m.es> Tue, 19 May 2020 14:33 UTC
Return-Path: <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
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 5EBF03A0861 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 May 2020 07:33:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=it.uc3m.es
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 DTpP7cuJcvAr for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 May 2020 07:33:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-il1-x12b.google.com (mail-il1-x12b.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 63DEE3A085A for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 May 2020 07:33:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-il1-x12b.google.com with SMTP id a14so8244197ilk.2 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 May 2020 07:33:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=it.uc3m.es; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=Ai/2tmIwItD15yzJRDge/vUFRheUyjSyLM0x4TMrOaQ=; b=NpqWI7IGb8dlHSNzSrLTcOkxVHpZ0ODC6fkYx72HYzdnlYA+Nm48koXzCNLLo0TaU7 Q7zOEJt0UzM4+6ZyqpaMv4aRRGvmkLAlIMLsQfm33ME4/tqXm4rxi+UYnCOFc4eWYsb+ J32ukFxfcqga1oeEzE7jWtUNXnG4MStUkzOsLx3Zpi5IcXPJaTe/qQ0dyzUL77gKlfcr iyw0h7iIV33altOD6V0/+tBDWsudx5L3aQyLUR8GhKNaTz6GUP/zkJoDSeb1lOu2G9dL 3IMTNdEbc9BC5Hga9SfJLcrLeM3VsZIrFrWevFVNp7Yig12tPyJbVv0x73sZ7RPjrPVF 574A==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=Ai/2tmIwItD15yzJRDge/vUFRheUyjSyLM0x4TMrOaQ=; b=k4rykUBdvvI8ekWyOQvR+4wP92LvBQXBgrQBif9WFkc10XwFV+OB2//DTnOFktKz9k o7Un7lelUYyLnjjyFCgN1I/VZQudLXPt0uBBvcTMQdYQ76thqAAFkKeLZV9LAcK5Ivh/ zw3bKjO1jmGDcH20SG++ZlELgainexsDxccY08Y9F1XJYvsvBFbJ1n0O2YnqzwGZoFji uSfH/7pTqqURQCDN6PG1/OufXqagte3DniyiJVZdC0LL8rvse5ihzECx8HvUj6a+ouWG b8a3iFNZbnLWWlNYJvmHhNMrWPVf11drSGbJlLPA8m0a+lHEXBq7EnFpWXW0ocF5dmRU T4vg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531DhQED87iWw3DY+EGEHWO6VmFEh+7mYHcBwxqDh9ekKK4fMTCh VDRGYuN9b5AsMfeQgqTPnoet0IHhut3mym1RwU8A/Q==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzh90CXNJrv0AM+adkWVaD46X1SqSrCnQg1NOsg+P6RT6OuF7+Lxud/x917eTL+mvbPjTIaSVDnZWPi6vyUDJ8=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:686:: with SMTP id o6mr10788595ils.280.1589898793270; Tue, 19 May 2020 07:33:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <158983448603.3400.6838657620034200956@ietfa.amsl.com>
In-Reply-To: <158983448603.3400.6838657620034200956@ietfa.amsl.com>
From: CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO <cjbc@it.uc3m.es>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 16:32:57 +0200
Message-ID: <CALypLp9b0hDj9hdPMtE2HQq+eUPd6suLyBn81_D6H6CgfAU6ZA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tatuya Jinmei <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>
Cc: "<int-dir@ietf.org>" <int-dir@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-dhc-slap-quadrant.all@ietf.org, dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>, last-call@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000cdab9505a60128d1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/spbkUktULViwhLfz_Kqa9_RZ_zw>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Intdir last call review of draft-ietf-dhc-slap-quadrant-08
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Tue, 19 May 2020 14:33:17 -0000
Thanks a lot for your detailed comments. I'll go through them and provide our responses in the following days. Carlos On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 10:41 PM Tatuya Jinmei via Datatracker < noreply@ietf.org> wrote: > Reviewer: Tatuya Jinmei > Review result: Ready with Issues > > I am an assigned INT directorate reviewer for > draft-ietf-dhc-slap-quadrant. These comments were written primarily > for the benefit of the Internet Area Directors. Document editors and > shepherd(s) 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 > on the INT Directorate, see > https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/intdir/about/ > > This draft defines a new DHCPv6 option that is supposed to be used > with draft-ietf-dhc-mac-assign. The new option makes it possible for > a client to specify its preferred "type" (SLAP) of MAC addresses to be > assigned and for the server to make the assignment decision based on > the preference. > > The draft is generally well written. I think it's basically ready, > but there are several points not very clear to me. I guess these are > largely editorial glitches or simply due to my lack of understanding of > the background rather than substantial technical issues. As a reader > I'd feel happy if my questions are clarified, but I'd leave these to > authors. > > Specific comments: > > - Section 4.1-3 > [...] The client SHOULD NOT pick a server that does not > advertise an address in the requested quadrant. > > Does this mean if a client follows this "SHOULD NOT" and receives > Advertise messages from servers that don't understand the new QUAD > option, then the client can't choose any server? If so, is it okay? > > - Section 4.1: > 5. When the assigned addresses are about to expire, the client sends > a Renew message. It includes the preferred SLAP quadrant(s) in > the new QUAD IA_LL-option, so in case the server is unable to > extend the lifetime on the existing address(es), the preferred > quadrants are known for the allocation of any "new" addresses. > > It's not clear to me what 'the preferred quadrants are known for the > allocation of any "new" addresses' means. Does this mean the server > will assign a new address from the specified quadrant(s) in response > to the Renew in this situation? > > - Section 4.2-3 > The preference between client's supplied QUAD and relay supplied QUAD > (or whether it matters) isn't clear to me. What if these are > inconsistent? Perhaps this paragraph at the end of Section 4.2 > answers the question? > > The server SHOULD implement a configuration parameter to deal > with the case where the client's DHCP message contains an instance of > OPTION_SLAP_QUAD, and the relay adds a second instance in its relay- > forward message. [...] > > If so, it might be more reader friendly if 4.2-3 gives a forward > reference to this consideration. Also, this paragraph seems to > suggest the server may (only) process the relay's instance of the QUAD > option. If so, and it's incompatible with the client's option, then I > guess the same question as Section 4.1-3 applies here. > > - Section 5.1 > > [...] Note that a quadrant - preference tuple is > used in this option (instead of using a list of quadrants ordered by > preference) to support the case whereby a client really has no > preference between two or three quadrants, leaving the decision to > the server. > > What does "a quadrant - preference tuple is used in this option" mean? > >From the context I guess it tries to talk about using the same > preference for multiple quadrants, but the actual text doesn't really > read that way to me... > > - Section 5.1 > > [...] If the server can provide an assignment from one of the > specified quadrants, it SHOULD proceed with the assignment. If the > server cannot provide an assignment from one of the specified > quadrant-n fields, it MUST NOT assign any addresses and return a > status of NoQuadAvail (IANA-2) in the IA_LL Option. > > The first and second sentece seem to contradict each other. If, for > example, two quadrants Q1 and Q2 are specified and the server can only > provide an assignment for Q1, what should it do? The first sentence > seems to say the server should proceed with the assignemtn for Q1; the > second sentence seems to say the server MUST NOT assign any address > and simply return NoQuadAvail. > > BTW, the second sentence also seems to contradict Section 4.1? 4.1-2 > states: > > [...] If > the client specified more than one SLAP quadrant, the server MUST > only return a NoQuadAvail status code if no address pool(s) > configured at the server match any of the specified SLAP > quadrants. > > Nits > Section 2: s/in in/in/ > relay A node that acts as an intermediary to deliver DHCP > [...] > functionality as described in in [RFC8415]. > > Section 2: s/it can be/if it can be/ ? > quadrant might be different. For example, it can be managed, this > > > >
- [dhcwg] Intdir last call review of draft-ietf-dhc… Tatuya Jinmei via Datatracker
- Re: [dhcwg] Intdir last call review of draft-ietf… CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO
- Re: [dhcwg] Intdir last call review of draft-ietf… CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO
- Re: [dhcwg] Intdir last call review of draft-ietf… 神明達哉
- Re: [dhcwg] Intdir last call review of draft-ietf… CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO
- Re: [dhcwg] Intdir last call review of draft-ietf… 神明達哉
- Re: [dhcwg] Intdir last call review of draft-ietf… CARLOS JESUS BERNARDOS CANO