Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-client-link-layer-addr-opt-01

Chuck Anderson <cra@WPI.EDU> Sun, 19 August 2012 03:35 UTC

Return-Path: <cra@WPI.EDU>
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 62D1121F8468 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Aug 2012 20:35:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pRkc+xAiZ2MY for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 18 Aug 2012 20:35:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MAIL1.WPI.EDU (MAIL1.WPI.EDU [130.215.36.91]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 334B821F845C for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 18 Aug 2012 20:35:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from MAIL1.WPI.EDU (MAIL1.WPI.EDU [130.215.36.91]) by MAIL1.WPI.EDU (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q7J3ZGYm032387; Sat, 18 Aug 2012 23:35:16 -0400
X-DKIM: Sendmail DKIM Filter v2.8.3 MAIL1.WPI.EDU q7J3ZGYm032387
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=wpi.edu; s=_dkim; t=1345347316; bh=Uno4pOri7aT01foHnCGqFC5IW8iUOM7wHpWSknP4L2o=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:In-Reply-To; b=bbqunJOpa1MagEJqFo97I1w/g7tApzJiK09/SROldtpIXEl9zwn7WA1PrHx8A2mOY YtGN69bB/8jU0Sc10q/XcIANw1G5PfBlvxMtVs2TBdm1bDZNKmWR6VAIgvqyI40xR9 qP2D7Qa+4VSX1/IWjubQ1IYMnSEY/QPBrLLXA5ic=
Received: from SMTP.WPI.EDU (SMTP.WPI.EDU [130.215.36.186]) by MAIL1.WPI.EDU (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id q7J3ZGkA032384; Sat, 18 Aug 2012 23:35:16 -0400
Received: from angus.ind.WPI.EDU (ANGUS.IND.WPI.EDU [130.215.130.21]) by SMTP.WPI.EDU (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q7J3ZESa007411; Sat, 18 Aug 2012 23:35:15 -0400 (envelope-from cra@WPI.EDU)
Received: from angus.ind.WPI.EDU (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by angus.ind.WPI.EDU (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q7J3ZEsn005294; Sat, 18 Aug 2012 23:35:14 -0400
Received: (from cra@localhost) by angus.ind.WPI.EDU (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id q7J3ZDa8005293; Sat, 18 Aug 2012 23:35:13 -0400
X-Authentication-Warning: angus.ind.WPI.EDU: cra set sender to cra@WPI.EDU using -f
Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 23:35:13 -0400
From: Chuck Anderson <cra@WPI.EDU>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Message-ID: <20120819033513.GA21200@angus.ind.WPI.EDU>
Mail-Followup-To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>, "A. Gregory Rabil" <greg.rabil@jagornet.com>, dhc WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>
References: <A87A2CCB-21D2-4437-9021-11013FB8218E@nominum.com> <CAAed6vtYx4g+C1PAWBFQF1aPAx-=PCE2YREnaNDSMYcgAY69_A@mail.gmail.com> <20120816173740.GD4612@angus.ind.WPI.EDU> <0016C6A9-CD91-4A4C-8303-8A53A45C8AF4@nominum.com> <20120816182130.GF4612@angus.ind.WPI.EDU> <EB1C78CC-B39E-49CF-BD91-E9B141EFA041@nominum.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <EB1C78CC-B39E-49CF-BD91-E9B141EFA041@nominum.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-12-10)
Cc: dhc WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-client-link-layer-addr-opt-01
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 03:35:18 -0000

On Thu, Aug 16, 2012 at 07:38:48PM +0000, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Aug 16, 2012, at 2:21 PM, Chuck Anderson wrote:
> "4.  DHCPv6 Relay Agent Behavior
> 
>   DHCPv6 Relay agents which are directly connected to clients/hosts MAY
>   include client link-layer address option in relayed DHCPv6 (RELAY-
>   FORW) message.  The DHCPv6 Relay agent behaviour can depend on
>   configuration that decides whether Client Link-layer Address option
>   needs to be processed and included.
> 
>   In Relay chaining scenarios, any other relay agent other than first
>   hop DHCPv6 Relay agent or DHCPv6 LDRA [RFC6221] MUST not add this
>   option."
> 
> Could say:
> 
>   DHCPv6 Relay agents which receive messages originating from clients
>   (for example Solicit and Request, but not, for example, Relay
>   Forward or Advertise) MAY include the link-layer source address of
>   the received message in relayed DHCPv6 Relay Forward messages.
>   The DHCPv6 Relay agent behavior can depend on configuration that
>   decides whether Client Link-layer Address option needs to be
>   processed and included.

I agree that this text would be good to replace the existing text in
section 4.

> 
> This makes it clear where the link layer address is coming from.   As an added bonus, there's no need to mention LDRAs or intermediary relays, since Relay Forward messages are specifically excluded.

Agreed.