Re: [mif] [dhcwg] WGLC in MIF WG for draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-dhcp-support

I misunderstood your comment: you referred to avoiding ordering but I
misread as "avoiding encapsulated options".  Apologies.

On 20 July 2015 at 13:47, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> wrote:
> I don't think that applies as each PVD is a separate option with encapsulations, including the OPTION_PVD_AUTH option. This PVD_AUTH option covers each PVD.
>
> - Bernie (from iPad)
>
>> On Jul 20, 2015, at 7:39 AM, Erik Kline <ek@google.com> wrote:
>>
>> I think the encapsulation matters so that you can have data for PVD1
>> and data for PVD2 clearly and correctly associated in one logical
>> response.
>>
>>> On 18 July 2015 at 15:24, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> wrote:
>>> Hi:
>>>
>>> A few items regarding this draft:
>>>
>>> 1. There is still "[TODO: Should we add any other exclusions?]" in section 6. Shouldn't this be resolved before sending this draft on?
>>>
>>> 2. RFC 7227 and general DHCPv6 options handling has avoided explicit ordering of options (or encapsulated options). So, why specify: "The OPTION_PVD_AUTH option MUST be the last option inside the OPTION_PVD option" in section 5?
>>>
>>> I presume (though it is not explicitly stated) that this is because this option contains the signature and obviously one can't generate the signature of the signature. But given how the signature is calculated, why is this even an issue?
>>>
>>> Can we avoid enforcing the order here? I cannot see how this matters and what the benefit is?
>>>
>>> If there is a reason for this ordering, please explain.
>>>
>>> Perhaps this comes from SEND document, but even then there is the question as to why this is needed.
>>>
>>>
>>> Anyway, these are some initial comments.
>>>
>>> - Bernie
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: dhcwg [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tomek Mrugalski
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2015 6:00 AM
>>> To: dhcwg
>>> Cc: mif-chairs@ietf.org
>>> Subject: [dhcwg] WGLC in MIF WG for draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-dhcp-support
>>>
>>> Gentlepeople,
>>>
>>> There's working group last call going in the mif working group for the multiple provisioning domains proposal. One of those drafts
>>> (draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-dhcp-support) defines DHCPv6 options. I'd appreciate any comments you may have on this. Make sure you post your comments in a way that will reach the draft authors - either cc them directly or perhaps send to both dhc and mif. They may not be subscribed to the dhc list.
>>>
>>> Tomek
>>>
>>> -------- Forwarded Message --------
>>> Subject:        [mif] WGLC for draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-dhcp-support
>>> Date:   Tue, 14 Jul 2015 23:16:05 +0800
>>> From:   Hui Deng <denghui02@hotmail.com>
>>> To:     mif@ietf.org <mif@ietf.org>, Margaret <margaretw42@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Hello all
>>>
>>> This email initiates 3 weeks WGLC for below document:
>>> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-mif-mpvd-dhcp-support/
>>>
>>> According to our working group discussion, we need 4-5 substantive reviews for this document before we move it to the IESG
>>>
>>> This WGLC will end on Aug. 5th.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your review.
>>>
>>> DENG Hui
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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