Re: [v6ops] Continuing WGLC: ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device-03

[Joel Halpern <[e-mail]>]

In line.  Thank you.  Joel

On 10/10/2023 2:29 AM, Jen Linkova wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 7, 2023 at 1:08 PM Joel Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> Having re-read the draft, I consider that it is ready for publication as
>> an Informational RFC.
> Thank you for your review!
<jmh> You are welcome. </jmh>
>
>> Two minor comments that may be considered for
>> inclusion are noted below.
>>
>> Minor:
>>
>>       In section 4(Design Principles) bullet 4, it refers to
>> communicating with other devices as per RFC 7084 WAA-7.  However, when I
>> go read WAA-7, I can't connect the dots.  Is there a typo in the
>> reference?  Or is there a subtlety that should be better explained?
> This sentence actually refers more to *using* the delegated prefixes.
> Would it be cleaner if it instead of
> "For example, it can form addresses and use them to communicate with
> the network, as described in [RFC7084] requirement WAA-7." it would
> just say:
> "For example, it can form addresses as described in [RFC7084]
> requirement WAA-7"?
<Jmh>Yes, that would help.  It would remove the part that confused me 
and leave a reasonable reference. </jmh>
>
>>     It may make sense to add a sentence noting that intermediate relay
>> routers do not need to snoop DHCP responses, as the leaf relay router is
>> expected to inject the delegated prefix into the routing system.
>> Snooping is only require, if I read this properly, for the first-hop
>> relay routers.
> Actually I believe the draft says (Section 6.2, the first-hop router
> requirements)
>
> "With the first-hop routers performing DHCPv6 relay functions, the
> proposed design neither requires any subsequent relays in the path nor
> introduce any requirements to such relays, if they are deployed."
>
> Do you think we shall explicitly say smth like "requirements (like snooping)"?
<jmh>Clearly, I did not read carefully enough.  It is there. Still, I 
think adding the parenthetical would help.  </jmh>
>>> On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 9:05 AM Joel Halpern <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>> Thank you.  The introduction now seems to me quite clear, and lays out
>>>> the case for the procedures the draft introduces.  I also appreciate the
>>>> caveats and clarifications in the Applicability and Limitations section (5).
>>> Thanks a lot for review and feedback, Joel!
>>> I'd like to confirm if you think that the current version of the draft
>>> is ready to complete the WGLC?
>>>> Joel
>>>>
>>>> On 10/6/2023 11:48 AM, Jen Linkova wrote:
>>>>> Dear v6ops WG,
>>>>>
>>>>> We have just submitted the -03 version for
>>>>> ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device - thank you very much to everyone who
>>>>> provided feedback!
>>>>> Please review and let us know if the draft is ready to progress.
>>>>>
>>>>> The main changes:
>>>>> - Introduction is rewritten (much shorter and, hopefully, more clear)
>>>>> - some text about multiple addresses use cases moved to Appendix.
>>>>> - The Applicability and Limitation section is moved up, so it's in the
>>>>> beginning - hopefully it would help the readers to understand what
>>>>> scenarios are in scope and what are not.
>>>>> - Client Mobility section added to discuss what happens when a client
>>>>> moves between network attachment points.
>>>>> - the draft is now explicit that it focuses on "a pool per link"
>>>>> scenario, which also drastically simplifies the routing and relay
>>>>> requirements (the routing section is updated as well).
>>>>> - the draft now suggests Active Leasequery as one of the mechanisms to
>>>>> keep the relay state in sync with the server.
>>>>> - The Prefix Consideration section has been updated and states that
>>>>> the endpoints are not required to use SLAAC - it's just the network
>>>>> allows them to do that, if they need to.
>>>>> - various changes to address other comments received during the WGLC so far.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to ask everyone who has expressed concerns during this WGLC
>>>>> (you are in Cc: - hopefully I didn't miss anyone) to review the new
>>>>> version and let the author know if you still have concerns.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 6, 2023 at 8:35 AM <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>>>> Internet-Draft draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device-03.txt is now available. It
>>>>>> is a work item of the IPv6 Operations (V6OPS) WG of the IETF.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       Title:   Using DHCPv6-PD to Allocate Unique IPv6 Prefix per Client in Large Broadcast Networks
>>>>>>       Authors: Lorenzo Colitti
>>>>>>                Jen Linkova
>>>>>>                Xiao Ma
>>>>>>       Name:    draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device-03.txt
>>>>>>       Pages:   18
>>>>>>       Dates:   2023-10-06
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Abstract:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>       This document discusses an IPv6 deployment scenario when individual
>>>>>>       clients connected to large broadcast networks (such as enterprise
>>>>>>       networks or public Wi-Fi networks) are allocated unique prefixes via
>>>>>>       DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation (DHCPv6-PD).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
>>>>>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is also an HTML version available at:
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device-03.html
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A diff from the previous version is available at:
>>>>>> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-v6ops-dhcp-pd-per-device-03
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Internet-Drafts are also available by rsync at:
>>>>>> rsync.ietf.org::internet-drafts
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> v6ops mailing list
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>>
>>> --
>>> SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry
>
>