Subject: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 - respond by Jan 27, 2014

From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:12:51 +0000

Hi all:

A call for adoption is being initiated at the request of the authors to determine whether there is WG consensus to adopt draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 as a DHC WG item. Please state whether or not you're in favor of the adoption by replying to this mail. If you are not in favor, please also state your objections in your response. This adoption call will complete on January  27, 2014.

The HTML version of the document can be viewed at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02.

If there is consensus to adopt as a WG document, we will confirm with Ted to get it on the charter.

Regards,

Tomek & Bernie

---

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:40:45 -0500

In favour. I commented on earlier revisions.

Comments for future revisions:

- First, I think it would be better protocol design to make 
OPTION_HOST_CONNECTIVITY contain a bit field, where IPv4 and IPv6 would 
be represented by bits that could be toggled independently. Other bits 
would be reserved for future use.

- Second, is it necessary for the relay to track and report 
*transitions*? Isn't it better to make the relay report the current 
state only, and let the DHCP server figure out the transition based on 
the previous state?

- Third, if we keep working with transitions, what is the initial state 
of a new host? If I plug in a host and it sends an RA, does it go from 
"no stack" to "IPv6-only"? Reporting the current state would deal with 
this easily, whereas reporting transitions would require a new set of 
messages I suppose.

Simon

Le 2014-01-13 10:12, Bernie Volz (volz) a écrit :
> Hi all:
>
> A call for adoption is being initiated at the request of the authors to
> determine whether there is WG consensus to adopt
> draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 as a DHC WG item. Please state whether
> or not you're in favor of the adoption by replying to this mail. If you
> are not in favor, please also state your objections in your response.
> This adoption call will complete on January  27, 2014.
>
> The HTML version of the document can be viewed at
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02.
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>

-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca

---

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:51:59 -0500

> of a new host? If I plug in a host and it sends an RA, does it go from

s/RA/RS/

Simon

---

From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 16:10:26 +0000

Hi:

Once adopted, we can request changes.

I too think it would be better to just provide information about the current state of a host's addresses rather than report transition states (transitions would trigger a Reconfigure-request). If there is a good reason for reporting state changes, perhaps both should be reported (i.e., flags and state change - or old vs new state)? That way the server can use either set to do its processing?

Also, as mentioned in the document, the option should be allowed to be sent by the host directly (though of course, it will be far quicker to get this rolled out if the relay agents are modified rather than all hosts).

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Simon Perreault
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 10:41 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 - respond by Jan 27, 2014

- First, I think it would be better protocol design to make OPTION_HOST_CONNECTIVITY contain a bit field, where IPv4 and IPv6 would be represented by bits that could be toggled independently. Other bits would be reserved for future use.

- Second, is it necessary for the relay to track and report *transitions*? Isn't it better to make the relay report the current state only, and let the DHCP server figure out the transition based on the previous state?

- Third, if we keep working with transitions, what is the initial state of a new host? If I plug in a host and it sends an RA, does it go from "no stack" to "IPv6-only"? Reporting the current state would deal with this easily, whereas reporting transitions would require a new set of messages I suppose.

Simon

Le 2014-01-13 10:12, Bernie Volz (volz) a écrit :
> Hi all:
>
> A call for adoption is being initiated at the request of the authors 
> to determine whether there is WG consensus to adopt
> draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 as a DHC WG item. Please state 
> whether or not you're in favor of the adoption by replying to this 
> mail. If you are not in favor, please also state your objections in your response.

---

From: 神明達哉 <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2014 10:49:39 -0800

At Mon, 13 Jan 2014 10:40:45 -0500,

> state only, and let the DHCP server figure out the transition based on

I had a similar or the same question/concern.  I may not fully
understand the background or some details of the proposal, but it
seemed to be introducing a substantial design to relay agents, i.e.,
making them more stateful while they were originally designed to be
highly stateless.

I don't know what can be considered a blocking issue for adoption and
what can be discussed after adoption, but in my gut feeling it's
better to have some rough level consensus on how much we are willing
to allow relay agents to be stateful before adopting it.

--
JINMEI, Tatuya

---

From: "Prashanth Patil (praspati)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 17:34:21 +0000

Agreed, it's not necessary to report actual transition change. Notifying
current state should suffice.

-Prashanth

---

From: "Prashanth Patil (praspati)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2014 17:36:03 +0000

Hi,

>making them more stateful while they were originally designed to be

Sure. Reporting transitions could be made simpler, as Simon suggests, by
just reporting current state. Changes may not be substantial; Relay
agents, in most cases, would at least keep state of what's been
assigned/relayed.

-Prashanth

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:01:48 +0100

Dear all,

I support the adoption of this document.

Cheers,
Med

PS: I'm also co-author of the document.

De : dhcwg [mailto:[email-masked]] De la part de Bernie Volz (volz)
Envoyé : lundi 13 janvier 2014 16:13
À : [email-masked]
Objet : [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 - respond by Jan 27, 2014

Hi all:

Regards,

Tomek & Bernie

---

From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:17:36 +0000

Oops ... I realize I never indicated my support of this document for adoption. I do support its adoption.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Bernie Volz (volz)
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 11:10 AM
To: Simon Perreault; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 - respond by Jan 27, 2014

Hi:

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Simon Perreault
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 10:41 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-wing-dhc-dns-reconfigure-02 - respond by Jan 27, 2014

Simon

---

From: Tomek Mrugalski <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 00:28:50 +0100

> This adoption call will complete on January  27, 2014.
Uh oh. This one slipped a bit.

With my chair hat off, I support adoption of this draft.

Tomek

---

From: Tomek Mrugalski <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 00:47:19 +0100

> This adoption call will complete on January  27, 2014.
As Bernie is away for couple days, I'm assessing consensus on my own.

The response for this adoption call was somewhat underwhelming.
Nevertheless, the feedback was strongly supportive and nobody opposed
this work. This draft was presented twice: in joint DHC/Sunset4 meeting
in Berlin and during DHC meeting in Vancouver. During each presentation
the room seemed interested and was generally in favor, although there
were technical comments.

Based on those facts I consider this adoption call to be successful.

Authors, please upload this draft as WG item.

This draft evolved a bit since its inception. It is no longer solely
about DNS reconfigure only. I think its current name "DHCPv6 Dynamic
Reconfiguration" is not the best one as dynamic is duplicated (D in
DHCPv6 stands for dynamic). Perhaps "Connectivity Status Notifications
for DHCPv6" would be a better name? This is only a suggestion. Feel free
to invent a more appropriate name for this work.

Tomek