Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol-02 - Respond by September 12, 2016

"Naiming Shen (naiming)" <> Thu, 01 September 2016 00:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B20812B047 for <>; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 17:31:45 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.068
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.068 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.548, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 366YFk-QBa_I for <>; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 17:31:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E72DA12B044 for <>; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 17:31:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=12686; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1472689904; x=1473899504; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=xbPyr/xpwDvy2JHeCMojas/Gf1nCHqhFhTwbAg6z4zY=; b=Q6Z4BGrfcvXkTm7giycTkE1chicu7lLnkDDwpfAy0cjvvWAbc310mpmu vwTjx8DCM91F0GDyQfEp9v52ss7PZu/XlJxDW/Qi5w4t9iPGoXubNx8Hp TSHUuSlpWxU9sgGafhTi8hnrsqPe98nQdTU9bZDv+DmjFR0K8xC50dma/ I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.30,264,1470700800"; d="scan'208,217";a="142201930"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 01 Sep 2016 00:31:42 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u810VgYj012190 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <>; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 00:31:42 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 19:31:41 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 31 Aug 2016 19:31:41 -0500
From: "Naiming Shen (naiming)" <>
To: "" <>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol-02 - Respond by September 12, 2016
Thread-Index: AdH392+aAsGEpWGCSKmqSKIM1tuxsAMGq6eA
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2016 00:31:41 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B56D48DE9048416CB86FC56F35D1073Dciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol-02 - Respond by September 12, 2016
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2016 00:31:45 -0000

Hi authors,

I have a simple comment on the document. In the section of abstract,
it mentioned the two servers ‘on the same network’. This is obvious true
for the case of serving DHCPv6 request directly from the clients on the
same network. I’m just wondering how does this work if the server is remote
and through some DHCPv6 relays. Can we put some text to clarrify this.

- Naiming

On Aug 21, 2016, at 4:18 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) <<>> wrote:

Hi all,

This message starts the DHC Working Group Last Call to advance draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol-02, DHCPv6 Failover Protocol. This document’s intended status is Proposed Standard. At present, there is no IPR file against this document.

Please send your comments by September 12, 2016. If you do not feel this  document should advance, please state your reasons why.

Note: We are trying another WGLC based on the discussion regarding this document led by Tomek at the Berlin (IETF-96) meeting and the feedback from those in attendance (see

Bernie Volz is the assigned shepherd (Tomek is a co-author).

- Tomek & Bernie

PS: I decided to make this a 3 week WGLC because some may still be on summer holiday and because of Labor Day (September 5) in the United States. And, some may be need a break from reviewing draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-05 for the just ending WGLC (August 22nd).

dhcwg mailing list<>