IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-client-id-02

shwethab <shwethab@cisco.com> Thu, 19 April 2012 06:58 UTC

Return-Path: <shwethab@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 A129621F84BD for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 23:58:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.995
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.995 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.208, BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_QP_LONG_LINE=1.396, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
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 FPTe7bRTSAZX for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 23:58:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bgl-iport-2.cisco.com (bgl-iport-2.cisco.com [72.163.197.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBF7221F84C4 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Apr 2012 23:58:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=shwethab@cisco.com; l=2170; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1334818735; x=1336028335; h=date:subject:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:mime-version: content-transfer-encoding; bh=4x2+w5jyDqKgYqudWmiNBiPm0MHBiUsNhkYTIdH7cB8=; b=YVgxxEBByPXOpwDor5s0ha591K/cX32ijtikIWswNfHk62XJHh/bIGWj MbXw0ls9//oui2uj8N7PpqJrcZt4XdWfvLpwMeJqnleRs0qvpMpfjRPxo OKmzSaz0UY0MILSQaaC7RxrDGbqbAygISv5mTApoRwJFw4vXfuDdlnYKw Q=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ap4EAGO3j09Io8UY/2dsb2JhbAA5CrJRggsBBAEBAQ8BKQExHQEICWQwAQEEAQoIIodtC5otoDEEimCFVQSIKTGFLodnjlGBaYJv
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.75,445,1330905600"; d="scan'208";a="10409963"
Received: from vla196-nat.cisco.com (HELO bgl-core-1.cisco.com) ([72.163.197.24]) by bgl-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Apr 2012 06:58:34 +0000
Received: from xbh-bgl-412.cisco.com (xbh-bgl-412.cisco.com [72.163.129.202]) by bgl-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q3J6wYMq021365; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 06:58:34 GMT
Received: from xmb-bgl-417.cisco.com ([72.163.129.213]) by xbh-bgl-412.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 19 Apr 2012 12:28:34 +0530
Received: from 10.65.71.115 ([10.65.71.115]) by XMB-BGL-417.cisco.com ([72.163.129.213]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 06:58:33 +0000
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.20.0.090605
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 12:33:15 +0530
From: shwethab <shwethab@cisco.com>
To: Peng Wu <pengwu.thu@gmail.com>, DHC WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <CBB5B68B.4098A%shwethab@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-client-id-02
Thread-Index: Ac0d+n2bvZQUxTD3k0eDXtwAD/k6NQ==
In-Reply-To: <CAC16W0CEEapMhN0Z4Az3LuWzoDgR1wr7CT_TgC-g23So9iEJvA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 19 Apr 2012 06:58:34.0127 (UTC) FILETIME=[D631E9F0:01CD1DF9]
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-client-id-02
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: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 06:58:59 -0000

I also support this draft and would like to see it moving forward.
+1
> 
> Cheers~
> 
> 2012/4/14 Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>:
>> This document corrects a bug in RFC2131 that forbids the DHCP server from
>> returning a DHCP client identifier.   The lack of a DHCP client identifier
>> creates a problem in two cases: where the underlying transport has no
>> link-layer address, and where two clients are running on the same host,
>> supplying different client identifiers so as to present different network
>> identities.   In both of these cases, insufficient information is returned
>> from the DHCP server to clearly identify the client that is the intended
>> recipient of the message.   The only way to fix this is to _require_ the DHCP
>> server to return the client identifier if it receives it.   This is what the
>> proposed document does.
>> 
>> We checked for consensus in the meeting, and four people were in favor of
>> advancing the draft; nobody was against.
>> 
>> I think this is actually pretty important work‹it's a lingering bug in the
>> spec which I think will come back to bite us more and more as we start
>> getting deeper into the dual-stack transition.   So if you haven't read the
>> document, please do.
>> 
>> If you support advancing it, please signify by replying to this message and
>> saying that you support it. If you think it's a bad idea, please signify by
>> replying to this message and explaining why.   If you have comments or
>> changes to propose, please send them along, and also signify whether you are
>> in favor of advancement with the change, without the change, or oppose
>> advancement.
>> 
>> We will determine consensus on April 27, based solely on responses on the
>> mailing list, so please do respond.
>> 
>> Thanks!
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email