IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Some comments regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-unknown-msg-01

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Sun, 28 July 2013 22:42 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 7F10121F9E9E for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 15:42:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.569
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.569 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.030, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 FdkmZ+GI3p7L for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 15:42:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og126.obsmtp.com (exprod7og126.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.206]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1B5721F9E9F for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 15:42:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob126.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUfWeVWkcd5zRnchNc4i/3xtv7ABlHO4R@postini.com; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 15:42:30 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 650881B8244 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 15:42:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-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 4A1F819006B; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 15:42:29 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 15:42:29 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Marcin Siodelski <msiodelski@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: Some comments regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-unknown-msg-01
Thread-Index: AQHOi+MQLV3h4mNt20+Shng/eneZrJl7JMiA
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 22:42:28 +0000
Message-ID: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B6307752334C7@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
References: <CAFGoqUPOVNOknZFD7JkhOSDqu63VML6iH7yyuA-je-_8W=G2bQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFGoqUPOVNOknZFD7JkhOSDqu63VML6iH7yyuA-je-_8W=G2bQ@mail.gmail.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: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-ID: <9C848F0EA64531478DA70A790F00144C@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "<dhcwg@ietf.org>" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "<cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn>" <cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Some comments regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-unknown-msg-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, 28 Jul 2013 22:42:37 -0000

On Jul 29, 2013, at 12:37 AM, Marcin Siodelski <msiodelski@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also, the first part may be wrong in a light of rfc3315, section 19.1.1 which says that server may send Reconfigure in the Relay-Reply message and since it is server initiated message, it is not sent "in response to a message from relay" as stated in the bullet.

Those messages are never sent to relay agents.

Your other comments sound right to me, and I don't mean to say that the last comment doesn't require clarification, just that this is why the text currently reads that way.

Thanks for doing the review!

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email