Re: [Softwires] ACTION REQUIRED: Proposed AUTH48 changes to draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp

Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com> Tue, 16 June 2015 21:50 UTC

Message-ID: <55809A27.3010101@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2015 17:50:31 -0400
From: Suresh Krishnan <suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Softwires WG <softwires@ietf.org>
References: <E87B771635882B4BA20096B589152EF628C744A4@eusaamb107.ericsson.se>
In-Reply-To: <E87B771635882B4BA20096B589152EF628C744A4@eusaamb107.ericsson.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/softwires/zlTS7XeXYkqoMmeJ5KbmvvmRiJg>
Cc: Yong Cui <cuiyong@tsinghua.edu.cn>, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Softwires] ACTION REQUIRED: Proposed AUTH48 changes to draft-ietf-softwire-map-dhcp
Precedence: list

Hi all.
   As there were no objections received from the wg, I have asked the 
authors make this change during AUTH48.

Thanks
Suresh

On 06/01/2015 12:29 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
> Hi all,
>     There is a small clarification of DHCPv6 behavior that is in the
> process of being adopted by the dhcpv6bis work that will impact the MAP
> DHCP specification that is currently in the RFC Editor queue.
>
> RFC 3315 states that servers don't send options that the clients did not
> request in the ORO. But it's not clear about what to do about
> encapsulated option (i.e. options that appear inside of other options).
> In the process of working on 3315bis, the dhc wg has concluded that any
> option the client wants to see, whether encapsulated or not, needs to
> appear in the ORO.
>
> The following text change can update the draft to better reflect the new
> proposed behavior of the DHCPv6 servers, while still staying conformant
> to the current specifications.
>
> OLD:
>      This approach implies that all of the provisioning options MUST
>      appear only within the container options.  The client MUST NOT
>      request any of the provisioning options directly within an ORO.  MAP-
>      DHCP clients that receive provisioning options that are not
>      encapsulated in container options MUST silently ignore these options.
>      DHCP server administrators are advised to ensure that DHCP servers
>      are configured to send these options in the proper encapsulation.
>
> NEW:
>      This approach implies that all of the provisioning options
>      appear only within the container options. MAP-
>      DHCP clients that receive provisioning options that are not
>      encapsulated in container options MUST silently ignore these options.
>      DHCP server administrators are advised to ensure that DHCP servers
>      are configured to send these options in the proper encapsulation.
>
> ACTION REQUIRED:
>
> Since this clarification is being proposed for AUTH48 I would like to do
> a consensus check to see if there are any objections in the wg to doing
> this change. Please respond to this email if you have any issues with
> the proposed text by end of day June 8 AOE. If there are no objections
> by then, we will go ahead with making this change.
>
> Thanks
> Suresh
>

[Softwires] ACTION REQUIRED: Proposed AUTH48 chan… Suresh Krishnan
Re: [Softwires] ACTION REQUIRED: Proposed AUTH48 … Suresh Krishnan