Re: [dhcwg] [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-05

tianxiang li <peter416733@gmail.com> Thu, 02 February 2017 15:26 UTC

Return-Path: <peter416733@gmail.com>
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 79ACD12946D; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 07:26:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 LqguKZ3bEL2p; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 07:26:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ot0-x22e.google.com (mail-ot0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c0f::22e]) (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 17AC2129457; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 07:26:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ot0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id f9so14190592otd.1; Thu, 02 Feb 2017 07:26:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=DnF+s4vIkTb7fBFANeAtifhEqUtodV4CLlUYBpBZ9DM=; b=EnYUbYoIXvZn9mq5UPZ8uPAbZsooOixyLXPRRyWv89QRbsf6ICrWH/EucCzvXsTnk5 RuksITqGSVU7z4eSR9MDCLWPohw3e2xI4zd3zMqlQYlHOa+ouDJR8sp9IudaFUGhGbGu 5WQOKjJvHzkUxODHO/xjcAG03cY6sI3sY4XjWpcOGDMhRCPBrslxRU+B+O2+tMedm4YX XK6M+lP5YRj/iTEKcoULSAQNSQwq0/uJyCFG30ZTblm8cgByZDYnq1Hw/RdrR9O2TQXh S8LCHXUy6kjAURyo9xCiWABvFcxEu9W5SLYVwfossitw1i1RhO4hznjUDEmPQqGf/cY6 Y07Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=DnF+s4vIkTb7fBFANeAtifhEqUtodV4CLlUYBpBZ9DM=; b=Pi/C7EOa1LZIVaLRIEUoRcUG/XaizSpvavV4aMPGfm15s8YtPnHSJw2WxDfuyiSVlv r5YYaZ8cx8SntJt0l+xlDmUao2zx+e6TroCjJcd7hPe9xqlj1+PJ6SujJLRIs3LmX6rB nfqAmaTKQgt/YAPm8mFJWm5PPXV8izMttnosSPufTVAUzp+ZRDihFmwA6tglFXuS48Ub 2lxpB0RTCv/z7Dke5RJ/KruCGAMkTp0terXJTLkvJzIbZiMxShcWPfeeqf15PCxu3MaR m5bNQTxFQZRgnU4AqZMkbk5oFUgGVyaftrlluDELxNSh60S6t8ujXVPoYHp9HCoxK3cX S68Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AMke39llhjmuR/0ba06CoHmy9S5aIfn5/6xzkzLsKVPnUDYWudZwzD84B3F0VLlyLlusqpD8lLz7tjzafkJUsg==
X-Received: by 10.157.60.149 with SMTP id z21mr4074859otc.34.1486049162280; Thu, 02 Feb 2017 07:26:02 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.202.1.202 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Feb 2017 07:25:21 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD771622@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com>
References: <148568056700.24536.11691583944564362484.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAFx+hEPy0rzAa_QFu4wOBc2hpRqX-5MM0OtZfmuy82Ls7WRmAA@mail.gmail.com> <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD770018@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com> <CAFx+hEO0x9EVCOgA1YDU7O-1wfRPnsiDzK5GB=MAHSqcir2JMw@mail.gmail.com> <6E58094ECC8D8344914996DAD28F1CCD771622@DGGEMM506-MBX.china.huawei.com>
From: tianxiang li <peter416733@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 23:25:21 +0800
Message-ID: <CAFx+hEOc_U4uPGYsE9whndfF3dyoiZxLxHoH+uaxCJ6McAq4_Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Roni Even <roni.even@huawei.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c19018e6fc61805478dc8b4
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/w016U26_yAPqFaDEZqwDsSro6XM>
Cc: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "gen-art@ietf.org" <gen-art@ietf.org>, Roni Even <roni.even@mail01.huawei.com>, "ietf@ietf.org" <ietf@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue.all@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [Gen-art] Review of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-05
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 02 Feb 2017 15:26:04 -0000

Hi Roni,

Thank you for comments, we'll add the changes to the document in our next
updated version.
Please see inline.

Cheers,
Tianxiang

2017-02-02 14:42 GMT+08:00 Roni Even <roni.even@huawei.com>;:

> Hi,
>
> I will leave only the items that needed my response
>
>
>
> 7.      In section 3.4 “If the client decided to use  the prefix provided
> by the server despite being longer than the  prefix-length hint” yet I
> did not see in section 3.2 that the server can provide a longer
> prefix.
>
>
>
> [Tianxiang] This was mentioned in the last sentence of section 3.2:
>
>
>
> "If the requested prefix is not available in the server's prefix pool, and
> the client also included a prefix-length hint in the same IA_PD option,
> then the server SHOULD try to provide a prefix matching the prefix-length
> value, or the prefix with the shortest length possible which is closest to
> the prefix-length hint value."
>
> *[Roni Even] I understood from 3.2 that it should provide a shorter length
> prefix  closer to the request maybe “*or the prefix with the closest
> possible length to the prefix-length hint value”
>
>
>
> [Tianxiang2] The original sentence was a bit confusing, perhaps we could
> change it like this:
>
>
>
> OLD: "If the requested prefix is not available in the server's prefix
> pool, and the client also included a prefix-length hint in the same IA_PD
> option, then the server SHOULD try to provide a prefix matching the
> prefix-length value, or the prefix with the shortest length possible which
> is closest to the prefix-length hint value."
>
>
>
> NEW:"If the requested prefix is not available in the server's prefix pool,
> and the client also included a prefix-length hint in the same IA_PD option,
> then the server SHOULD provide a prefix matching the prefix-length hint, or
> a prefix which is length is shorter and as close as possible to the
> prefix-length hint. If the server could not provide a prefix which length
> is shorter or equal to the prefix-length hint, the server SHOULD provide
> the prefix which length is longer and as close as possible to the
> prefix-length hint."
>
>
>
> *[Roni Even] I have no problem with this text since it will also work with
> the rest of the document but is it what was really meant*
>
>
>
[Tianxiang3] This was the intended meaning of the original sentence, if the
server could not honor the hint, it should provide a prefix closest to the
hint, the client could then decide whether to accept or neglect this prefix.


> *Also a nit*
>
>
>
> “or a prefix which is length is shorter and as close as possible to the
> prefix-length hint. If the server could not provide a prefix which length
> is shorter or equal to the prefix-length hint, the server SHOULD provide
> the prefix which length is longer and as close as possible to the
> prefix-length hint”
>
>
>
> to
>
>
>
> “or a prefix whose length is shorter and as close as possible to the
> prefix-length hint. If the server could not provide a prefix with a shorter
> or equal length  to the prefix-length hint, the server SHOULD provide a
> prefix whose length is longer and as close as possible to the prefix-length
> hint”
>

[Tianxiang3] Thanks for the suggestion, we will edit this sentence
accordingly.

>
>
>
>
> Nits/editorial comments:
>
>
>
>
>