Re: [dhcwg] Please review draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp, particularly section 5.

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Thu, 20 March 2014 11:34 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 F23611A06AF for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 04:34:10 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.448
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.448 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.547, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 zh2e5Ky2VUhW for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 04:34:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from toccata.fugue.com (toccata.fugue.com [204.152.186.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15F7C1A06CF for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 04:34:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:88a3::9932:dfc2:c428:ea16] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:88a3:0:9932:dfc2:c428:ea16]) by toccata.fugue.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 59A3A23814D9; Thu, 20 Mar 2014 07:33:57 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.2 \(1874\))
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
In-Reply-To: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36F51A2DD6C@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2014 07:33:56 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <F4C723E5-D9BB-44D3-A18F-A3B331E37E0C@fugue.com>
References: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36F51A2DB17@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <C7964664-C302-4ABE-9CAC-1AD5D9048699@cisco.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AF1C1CA@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36F51A2DD6C@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1874)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/uqo1D9ctvaeY-xfeqfVtX1asa7o
Cc: DHC WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Bernie Volz <volz@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Please review draft-ietf-pcp-dhcp, particularly section 5.
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, 20 Mar 2014 11:34:11 -0000

On Mar 20, 2014, at 2:50 AM, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>; <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>; wrote:
> Is it problematic if we declare the design in the draft as being not compatible with RFC3369? RFC3396 indicates that specification requiring 3396 must explicit it in their specs. 

It just doesn't help, because RFC2131 doesn't forbid the behavior described in RFC 3396, nor recommend the behavior that this draft depends on.   So you are assuming a feature is present in DHCP servers and clients that was never present except possibly by accident.

I apologize for not catching this sooner—I've read the draft a number of times and didn't register this until the AD review, which is why I asked the DHC working group to look at it.