Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-sakane-dhc-dhcpv6-kdc-option-14.txt

Jeffrey Hutzelman <> Tue, 29 May 2012 13:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC6FB21F85C6 for <>; Tue, 29 May 2012 06:22:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4Z1QXQBldkKL for <>; Tue, 29 May 2012 06:22:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (SMTP03.SRV.CS.CMU.EDU []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 326D221F85C3 for <>; Tue, 29 May 2012 06:22:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id q4TDMh3t002245 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5 bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 29 May 2012 09:22:48 -0400 (EDT)
References: <> <>
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <>
Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 09:22:38 -0400
To: Stephen Farrell <>, ssakane <>
Message-ID: <>
X-Scanned-By: mimedefang-cmuscs on
Cc: General Area Review Team <>, Masahiro Ishiyama <>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Gen-art review of draft-sakane-dhc-dhcpv6-kdc-option-14.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 May 2012 13:22:54 -0000

Stephen Farrell <> wrote:

>On 05/28/2012 10:01 PM, ssakane wrote:
>> All,
>> I have corresponded all you suggested, and made a new version of the
>> But, I haven't submitted it yet.
>> Corresponding to Alexey's review, I have merged both client operation
>> and server operation into a single section: client and server
>> in order for readers to understand the operations easily.
>> And, I have improved the description of how a client gets information
>> and what kind of information a server has to reply.
>> However, I am worry that this improvement will probably take this
>> to the WG review phase again.
>> I would like to ask from you whether my improvement was good way or
>I'd say post the new revision and send a mail to the WG
>list summarising the changes. There's no need to note
>changes that are just to the layout of the text but if
>there are changes to the protocol (e.g. addition of a
>new MUST or something) then that's what the WG should
>see. And if nobody yells, then we can go ahead.
>> And, I also need an input from you about 4.1. KDC discovery for a
>> because this behavior should be left to local matter.  I am thinking
>> just remove this diagram and its description.  See my response
>> to Alexey's comment below.
>Removing it seems fine to me, but maybe you want to
>be more precise about what the administrator of the
>realm MUST do here - just saying "define the method
>for the client" isn't really clear, maybe say that
>the administrator for the realm MUST pick one as
>the preferred method for clients to use. (If that's
>what you want to say.)
>Jeff - if any of that is not what you prefer, please
>say so, but posting the revision and moving this along
>seems right to me.

As long as there are no changes to the protocol (bits or semantics), that seems fine.