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

"Naiming Shen (naiming)" <naiming@cisco.com> Thu, 01 September 2016 14:26 UTC

Return-Path: <naiming@cisco.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 B573512D6A8 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 07:26:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.069
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.069 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, 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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.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 xllzXALypjpT for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 07:26:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-4.cisco.com (alln-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.142.91]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3FE1212D581 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 07:26:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=4052; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1472739980; x=1473949580; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-id:content-transfer-encoding: mime-version; bh=OlOHdnS5oOh0cJPBH2I+812o9mXDPNOijQ98R0HBCTI=; b=M8MLfqTKYYGunQJejcLga5JqcgKE30ZaIuFcpnfoh3W/yRmOU7O1A540 GtVlWFQ8NK0iyTSBt4hPRJYKdNrQutWcVJwobSpaomqO9hBBwzxdAxCyW f5CGPETqIXlDINuU50M68IgSnVmuEiQ73PEK3Zj5J3mZ3LvQbiA7Rda76 o=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AAAgBPOshX/4QNJK1dg1ABAQEBAR5XbQ8HuCKCAiSFeAIcgTU4FAECAQEBAQEBAV4nhGEBAQQBAQEhEToLBQsCAQgYAgImAgICJQsVEAEBBA4FCYg3CA6tZox3AQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBAQEBHIEFhyKCVYE5gnGDGCuCLwWZUAGPMIFthF2JDYxIg3gBHjaCViaBNXCFbX8BAQE
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.30,267,1470700800"; d="scan'208";a="317385058"
Received: from alln-core-10.cisco.com ([173.36.13.132]) by alln-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 01 Sep 2016 14:26:19 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com (xch-aln-003.cisco.com [173.36.7.13]) by alln-core-10.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u81EQJHK016875 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 14:26:19 GMT
Received: from xch-rcd-004.cisco.com (173.37.102.14) by XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com (173.36.7.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 09:26:18 -0500
Received: from xch-rcd-004.cisco.com ([173.37.102.14]) by XCH-RCD-004.cisco.com ([173.37.102.14]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 09:26:18 -0500
From: "Naiming Shen (naiming)" <naiming@cisco.com>
To: "Kim Kinnear (kkinnear)" <kkinnear@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol-02 - Respond by September 12, 2016
Thread-Index: AdH392+aAsGEpWGCSKmqSKIM1tuxsAMGq6eAABtMDIAAAdncgA==
Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2016 14:26:18 +0000
Message-ID: <C0BF9575-5FDF-43EE-B2DB-24BD1EB7A54D@cisco.com>
References: <258822dc0efd4a3daa19eb64086b5de7@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <B56D48DE-9048-416C-B86F-C56F35D1073D@cisco.com> <E659735F-18E0-4432-B574-BC573FBB20B9@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <E659735F-18E0-4432-B574-BC573FBB20B9@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-messagesentrepresentingtype: 1
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [10.24.95.201]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <04BBA4E1E5D0904C84DFD65DB64A7886@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/ws0iQDnU8VPuTqtJjihyb8Fo38k>
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol-02 - Respond by September 12, 2016
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, 01 Sep 2016 14:26:25 -0000

Kim,

Thanks for the clarification. Since the two servers using TCP to
communicate with each other and with explicit user provisioning,
I’m wondering this ‘on the same network’ term is needed here.

thanks.
- Naiming

> On Sep 1, 2016, at 6:33 AM, Kim Kinnear (kkinnear) <kkinnear@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Naiming,
> 
> Sure, we can clarify that.  The "on the same network" comment was not,
> actually, about where the clients connect at all.  The "on the same
> network" phrase was *trying* say that the two DHCPv6 servers could
> communicate with each other.  It is assumed that some (most) of the
> DHCPv6 clients will be communicating with the DHCPv6 server through
> DHCPv6 relays.
> 
> We will fix this along with other comments that come in during WGLC.
> 
> If you think this document should be moved forward, please send a
> comment saying that.  If not, please send a comment saying *that* and
> why you don't think it should move forward.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Kim
> 
>> On Aug 31, 2016, at 8:31 PM, Naiming Shen (naiming) <naiming@cisco.com> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 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.
>> 
>> thanks.
>> - Naiming
>> 
>>> On Aug 21, 2016, at 4:18 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> 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 (seehttps://www.ietf.org/proceedings/96/minutes/minutes-96-dhc).
>>> 
>>> 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
>>> dhcwg@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> dhcwg mailing list
>> dhcwg@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>