Re: [dhcwg] draft-lemon-dhc-dns-pd-01.txt
Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Sun, 29 July 2012 15:59 UTC
Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 4EE6821F8625 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 08:59:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.549
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.049, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zV4TR-GjF5fq for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 08:59:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og113.obsmtp.com (exprod7og113.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.179]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47FC121F85D5 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 08:59:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob113.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUBVdxwscTQVHgwko1viWOVaEU8VoeXlu@postini.com; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 08:59:04 PDT
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D6101B8263 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 08:59:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1616919005D; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 08:59:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.131]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 08:59:03 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] draft-lemon-dhc-dns-pd-01.txt
Thread-Index: Ac1tmw/2b/R08ZxSRCmQ4FrzUZcKRQAQq4+A
Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 15:59:02 +0000
Message-ID: <CC992AF0-4594-4BDE-8166-59D43709B3CC@nominum.com>
References: <ADF7CEDD-A876-4DAA-9EBE-06A9078C444B@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <ADF7CEDD-A876-4DAA-9EBE-06A9078C444B@cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CC992AF045944BDE816659D43709B3CCnominumcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] draft-lemon-dhc-dns-pd-01.txt
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, 29 Jul 2012 15:59:05 -0000
On Jul 29, 2012, at 11:01 AM, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
"DHCP Discover" should be "DHCP Solicit". Might be best to drop DHCP before the DHCPv6 message names as RFC 3315 and others haven't generally done that.
Oops!
I also think the following deserves some discussion:
The requesting router MUST silently
discard any DHCP Advertise message containing a PDZM option that
indicates a method that was not listed in the PDZP option sent in the
DHCP Discover message.
This seems a bit severe to me - especially if a server is just configured to return a fixed vale for this option. I could see move this to the end of the list of Advertises to be considered, but to discard it should be a SHOULD - not a MUST.
The reason for making this a MUST is that it should never happen. If we make it a should, people won't actually implement this spec—they'll do what you're suggesting and just make it an option. The goal here was to do a negotiation, not return a configuration option. I guess that's what the discussion would be about—do we want this to be a negotiation, or an option, or both? You can see where I stand on the issue—that's why I wrote it this way... :)
Though this would likely only work if the "fixed" option specified spoofed, since the others require further communication.
Right.
Thanks for the review! I'll be curious to hear if other wg members have reactions to the question you've posed!
- [dhcwg] draft-lemon-dhc-dns-pd-01.txt Bernie Volz (volz)
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-lemon-dhc-dns-pd-01.txt Ted Lemon