the WG draft on "domain suffix" option

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

the WG draft on "domain suffix" option

CTO YAN Renxiang
Dear all,
 
The WG last call on "Domain suffix option for DHCPv6" is on going.
 
If you have read this documents and/or contributed your comments, could you please respond to this last call?  As you all know, if there is little discussion, the document will not be advanced to the IESG.
 
So I strongly urge anyone who is interested in the document make their voice be heard. You comments, either positive or negative, are always appreciated.
 
Regards,
-Renxiang
 

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: the WG draft on "domain suffix" option

Ted Lemon
On Monday 12 December 2005 19:27, CTO YAN Renxiang wrote:
> If you have read this documents and/or contributed your comments, could you
> please respond to this last call?  As you all know, if there is little
> discussion, the document will not be advanced to the IESG.

Thanks for the reminder - I meant to reply to your previous request, but it
got lost in the noise.

I have read the document, and I'd like to see it go forward, but there is one
part of the document that I believe is incorrect and needs to be fixed before
it advances:

   In stateful DHCPv6 [RFC3315], the DHCPv6 server MAY place a domain
   suffix option in the options field of IA_PD option [RFC3363] in an
   outgoing DHCPv6 message.  The DHCPv6 server MUST NOT place a domain
   suffix option in any other portion of a stateful DHCPv6 message.

So this essentially forbids the use of the domain suffix option in a stateful
DHCPv6 message between a regular DHCPv6 client and server.   Can you explain
why this makes sense?   To me it seems perfectly valid to send this option in
a regular DHCP message.   Also, why only in the IA_PD options field?   It
makes more sense to me to send it in the global options field, like any other
DHCPv6 option, unless its value is different for a particular IA_NA or IA_PD
option, in which case you would send the different values in each individual
IA_NA or IA_PD option.

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

re: the WG draft on "domain suffix" option

CTO YAN Renxiang
In reply to this post by CTO YAN Renxiang

On Tuesday 13 December 2005 11:27, Ted Lemon wrote:

>
> On Monday 12 December 2005 19:27, CTO YAN Renxiang wrote:
> > If you have read this documents and/or contributed your comments, could you
> > please respond to this last call?  As you all know, if there is little
> > discussion, the document will not be advanced to the IESG.
>
> Thanks for the reminder - I meant to reply to your previous
> request, but it got lost in the noise.
>
> I have read the document, and I'd like to see it go forward,
> but there is one part of the document that I believe is incorrect and needs to
> be fixed before
> it advances:
>
>    In stateful DHCPv6 [RFC3315], the DHCPv6 server MAY place a domain
>    suffix option in the options field of IA_PD option [RFC3363] in an
>    outgoing DHCPv6 message.  The DHCPv6 server MUST NOT place a domain
>    suffix option in any other portion of a stateful DHCPv6 message.
>
> So this essentially forbids the use of the domain suffix option in a stateful
> DHCPv6 message between a regular DHCPv6 client and server.  
> Can you explain why this makes sense?   To me it seems perfectly valid to
> send this option in a regular DHCP message.   Also, why only in the IA_PD options
> field?   It makes more sense to me to send it in the global options
> field, like any other DHCPv6 option, unless its value is different for a particular
> IA_NA or IA_PD option, in which case you would send the different values in
> each individual IA_NA or IA_PD option.
I believe we have mentioned this issue in the previous mail. The option is proposed to be
used to configure a domain suffix for a MIDDLE IPv6 device, which act as a DHCPv6 server to
perform service configuration for the devices inside the local network. I do not see the use
case to in other ways. More important, binding it with IA_PD will fit for the case if the value is
different. I am not sure if it's better to indicate that it can be used both with IA_PD and in regular
DHCP message, since I haven't seen such a usage in other DHCP options. Do you have other
proper methods?


> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[hidden email]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg