Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery-00 - Respond by [redacted]
Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com> Fri, 14 March 2014 10:10 UTC
Return-Path: <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.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 656D61A00D7 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 03:10:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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 5s82UZjDH-aR for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 03:10:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ee0-x233.google.com (mail-ee0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c00::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB7D31A00EF for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 03:10:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ee0-f51.google.com with SMTP id c13so1180419eek.10 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 03:10:13 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=sLZ9SHHDYKXFQ64YT5Y9UWMKnVFNkpi+Tj0b+/7EL1o=; b=w5Ay+5seDC00URouB6Fax+gJLDSAjgvNbG9/M6TD1g6DvyZdtEXP9K4AKtx13WI6Oe BAqGyhwsgobTixvng4B77nIa/rMdt8Ca2TaHt4bcaNPNPUJni3YQa95Dcan8OFTd6hX5 xzoGopLQhFQItrQ+y9Y3jGIOFaq8aOI8nvEFXOUZaOlnwNB0QQv7Gm87g5LbzdQnRCCx nEVvXbJcwOCcPI0X7cZ4dv8eqv+ga7SagJcWofui5PgyGABqD5pHDaXZi1/3DluKMOcg CFgocJ4kCSPzlWVSyzI/flXH1+FOIlotEzPpCtjgWAlb+yhWpon5827Z8v0R6DeuXvgS nVLg==
X-Received: by 10.14.182.131 with SMTP id o3mr7285513eem.67.1394791813549; Fri, 14 Mar 2014 03:10:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from thomson-osx.local (109107011157.gdansk.vectranet.pl. [109.107.11.157]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id o7sm3778496eew.25.2014.03.14.03.10.11 for <dhcwg@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 14 Mar 2014 03:10:12 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <5322D582.20704@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 11:10:10 +0100
From: Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: DHC WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>
References: <5322D53E.3070809@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5322D53E.3070809@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <5322D53E.3070809@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/wdq1CipjcprTh4ckqevYWg-dhmE
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery-00 - Respond by [redacted]
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: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 10:10:23 -0000
On 24.02.2014, 20:42, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote: > Reminder that this WGLC is outstanding. > > We need feedback in order to determine whether to advance this document. I finally got to do the review. I'm ashamed it took me so long. Sorry about that. The draft is in pretty good shape. It requires one more (small) update and it will be ready to go. Here are my comments: Section 2.Terminology - "Bulk Leasequery". the definition could be more explicit that it is about multiple addresses and multiple bindings. Also, a reference to RFC6926 could be useful here. Terminology does not define "requestor". If you don't want to duplicate definitions from existing RFCs, adding "See RFC4388" would be a bit minimalistic, but sufficient. DHCPv4 client definition: "Internet host" => "IPv4 node" (I think it's ok to stick with RFC1933 terminology. Any IPv4-capable device is a node. A node could be either host or a router. It is possible to run DHCP client on a router.) A DHCPv4 server definition: is an Internet host => "IPv4 node" (you can run server on a router) "IP address binding" definition: IPv4 IP address => IPv4 address There are many instances of "IP" in the whole text. In 2014 context it can be misunderstood as either IPv4 or IPv6. It's better to be explicit and replace all of them with "IPv4". Section 3 in second paragraph mentions connection over TCP. Framing format should be defined. It is defined in later sections, but it may be confusing when reading sequentially. A simple forward reference will do the trick. Section 5.1 explains TCP message framing. It references Bulk leasequery RFC (6926), but also includes its own framing text. Why? Potential implementors may be confused if both texts (here and 6926) are not 100% aligned. I'd like the text to be gone and use references to RFC6926 only. Section 5.3: "listen for incoming TCP connections on the DHCPv4 server port 67." => "listen for incoming TCP connections on port 67." Why table in section 5.3 repeats values BULK_LQ_MAX_CONNS and BULK_LQ_DATA_TIMEOUT from RFC6926, section 6.3? If you need to mention them, it would be better to say "Values X and Y defined in RFC6926 apply." Why are you sending DHCPLEASEUNASSIGNED at all? Why just not send anything for leases that are not assigned? I presume (I haven't read the draft, sorry) that DHCPv6 active leasequery does not attempt to send unusued v6 leases, right? Not sending LEASEUNASSIGNED would make both protocols to work in a more similar manner. Many DHCPv4 servers just prepopulate lease database and keep leases even if they are unassigned. But there are servers that do not have such a concept and use the same principle as in DHCPv6 (where keeping unused leases is infeasible). Section 7.3: After receiving DHCPLEASEQUERYSTATUS with a QueryTerminated status from a server, the Requestor MAY close the TCP connection to that server. Why not SHOULD or even MUST? General comment: packet names like DHCPACTIVELEASEQUERY and DHCPLEASEQUERYSTATUS are difficult to read. Perhaps the LEASEQUERY part of it could be shortened to LQ (DHCPACTIVELQ, DHCPLQSTATUS)? This is only a suggestion, feel free to ignore it. I undertsand that many of the types are already defined in published RFCs, so only the new ones could be shortened. But it would still be easier to read. Alternatively, a separator (dash or underscore) could be used. Although typically DHCPv4 packet names do no use separators, DHCPv6 does and nobody has a problem with that. So perhaps DHCP_ACTIVE_LEASEQUERY? Is the catch up phase mandatory to implement on the server side? Depending on how the server is implemented, adding a journal with changes made to any leases may be problematic. I was wondering if the catch up phase could be made optional (from the server implementor's perspective). If the server doesn't support it, requestor would have to do Bulk followed by Active leasequery (without query-start-time). I think the second to last paragraph in section 8.2 attempts to tell that already. One thing is not clear for me. Consider a case that there are active requestors listening to any updates via active leasequery. A new client comes in and the server assigns a new lease. I presume that server will send the leasequery update after it responded to the client, right? So it won't affect the response time. This is NOT a lockstep mechanism we discussed in failover context, right? Although that should be a common sense among implementors, security considerations should recommend that the feature is disabled by default. Otherwise less than clueful admins may find that their servers are more accessible than they'd like after an upgrade (or fresh installating). There are several (minor) idnits reported. Once you upload next rev, please make sure that the draft comes itnits clean. Ok, that's it. As an individual contributor, I think this document is almost ready and I support its move forward. As a shepherd, I'd like to ask authors to publish updated revision that addresses all comments raised and it will be ready. As a chair, I'll send a WGLC summary in couple minutes. Tomek p.s. I wish more documents could enjoy that level of maturity at -00. Good work, guys!
- Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-active… Tomek Mrugalski