Re: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 - respond by Jan 27, 2014

"Prashanth Patil (praspati)" <praspati@cisco.com> Thu, 16 January 2014 17:36 UTC

Return-Path: <praspati@cisco.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 1C4C41AE3CC for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 09:36:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.039
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.039 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.538, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] 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 FvsQpsp24zoW for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 09:36:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from alln-iport-8.cisco.com (alln-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.142.95]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A348B1AE3B4 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 09:36:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1385; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1389893764; x=1391103364; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=PXzwtGAtN+yfDTMK01THnYKEGcEFxZMAgGM2xXs5QH4=; b=NeC3WroxaT+P8/BQEO3CXpFOCnocXPRUSLwvfC5uGeRGsKLvr6DSYzdq S3OrbE8GuN3wJ2ljd+8AU02ytlchbS/j+89n9DsSFEcuj2FqTdVCzTxDc juYRuws4WofZHQOzkqABLf1xc6cU0+VasDmNahJ81imm+9RQyH168z1oH 4=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AjMFAL0X2FKtJV2a/2dsb2JhbABZgws4VoJ+ph6Rb4EOFnSCJQEBAQQBAQEeAUwLEAIBCBgBAwsaAwInCyUCBAENBYgEDYxJm2wBnCoTBIEmjVkHgmyBTASYIZIXgW+BPoIq
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.95,668,1384300800"; d="scan'208";a="13379487"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([173.37.93.154]) by alln-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 16 Jan 2014 17:36:04 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com [173.36.12.82]) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id s0GHa4Iw007506 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 16 Jan 2014 17:36:04 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x07.cisco.com ([169.254.7.150]) by xhc-aln-x08.cisco.com ([173.36.12.82]) with mapi id 14.03.0123.003; Thu, 16 Jan 2014 11:36:04 -0600
From: "Prashanth Patil (praspati)" <praspati@cisco.com>
To: =?iso-2022-jp?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= <jinmei@wide.ad.jp>, "Simon Perreault" <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 - respond by Jan 27, 2014
Thread-Index: AQHPEuFtZDXVSCEXckm05bt25496ng==
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 17:36:03 +0000
Message-ID: <CEFE161F.13ED8%praspati@cisco.com>
References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE1A630@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <52D408FD.9000509@viagenie.ca> <CAJE_bqcJ0_PnhNb56HYGcAS0ogUCNzSnwmDDk4q2QLU8FoboGA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJE_bqcJ0_PnhNb56HYGcAS0ogUCNzSnwmDDk4q2QLU8FoboGA@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.9.131030
x-originating-ip: [10.65.38.18]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-2022-jp"
Content-ID: <DF54424697BDEE459C5A94C11A8B8564@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 - respond by Jan 27, 2014
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, 16 Jan 2014 17:36:19 -0000

Hi,

On 1/16/14 12:19 AM, "神明達哉" <jinmei@wide.ad.jp> wrote:

>At Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:40:45 -0500,
>Simon Perreault <simon.perreault@viagenie.ca> wrote:
>
>> - Second, is it necessary for the relay to track and report
>> *transitions*? Isn't it better to make the relay report the current
>> state only, and let the DHCP server figure out the transition based on
>> the previous state?
>
>I had a similar or the same question/concern.  I may not fully
>understand the background or some details of the proposal, but it
>seemed to be introducing a substantial design to relay agents, i.e.,
>making them more stateful while they were originally designed to be
>highly stateless.

Sure. Reporting transitions could be made simpler, as Simon suggests, by
just reporting current state. Changes may not be substantial; Relay
agents, in most cases, would at least keep state of what's been
assigned/relayed.

-Prashanth


>
>I don't know what can be considered a blocking issue for adoption and
>what can be discussed after adoption, but in my gut feeling it's
>better to have some rough level consensus on how much we are willing
>to allow relay agents to be stateful before adopting it.
>
>--
>JINMEI, Tatuya
>_______________________________________________
>dhcwg mailing list
>dhcwg@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg