Subject: [dhcwg] I-D Action:draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-bulk-leasequery-02.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 13:15:01 -0700 (PDT)

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Dynamic Host Configuration Working Group of the IETF.

	Title           : DHCPv6 Bulk Leasequery
	Author(s)       : M. Stapp
	Filename        : draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-bulk-leasequery-02.txt
	Pages           : 18
	Date            : 2008-06-03

The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) has been
extended with a Leasequery capability that allows a client to request
information about DHCPv6 bindings.  That mechanism is limited to
queries for individual bindings.  In some situations individual
binding queries may not be efficient, or even possible.  This
document expands on the Leasequery protocol, adding new query types
and allowing for bulk transfer of DHCPv6 binding data via TCP.

A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-bulk-leasequery-02.txt

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

Below is the data which will enable a MIME compliant mail reader
implementation to automatically retrieve the ASCII version of the
Internet-Draft.
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

---

From: Mark Stapp <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 16:27:02 -0400

I had a couple of editorial comments that I've folded in, since 
(hopefully) this is about ready to go to the IESG. one comment was to 
use 'symbolic' references instead of numeric ones. the other was that 
there was some inconsistency in using "RELAYID" in this draft, where it 
was more common to make the mnemonic "RELAY_ID".

Thanks,
Mark

[email-masked] wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

---

From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2008 23:00:33 -0400

Yeah, but RFC 3315 used:

      option-code   OPTION_CLIENTID (1).

And

      option-code   OPTION_SERVERID (2).

But I always thought that was a bit odd and CLIENT_ID/SERVER_ID would
have been better. (And RFC 3315 used OPTION_INTERFACE_ID, not
OPTION_INTERFACEID, so wasn't even consistent.)

I'm happy with OPTION_RELAY_ID!

- Bernie 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Mark Stapp (mjs)
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 4:27 PM
To: dhcwg
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D
Action:draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-bulk-leasequery-02.txt

Thanks,
Mark

> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-bulk-leasequer
y-02.txt

---

From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 18:25:10 -0400

DHC WG:

Kim was reviewing the Bulk LQ draft and asked some questions about the
rules for when a LEASEQUERY request is complete. Thus, I've suggested to
Mark adding text to clarify this.

Originally I had suggested:

   6.4 Leasequery Request Completion Criteria

   A LEASEQUERY is complete (i.e., no further messages for that
   request will be received) when:
    1. A LEASEQUERY_REPLY (with the same XID as the LEASEQUERY)
       with a non-success status code option is received.
    2. A LEASEQUERY_REPLY (with the same XID as the LEASEQUERY)
       without a status code option (or with a success status
       code option) and no OPTION_CLIENT_DATA is received.
    3. A LEASEQUERY_DONE (with the same XID as the LEASEQUERY)
       is received (either with or without a status code option).
    4. The connection has been closed.

But, after thinking about it more, perhaps the following is far simpler
to understand:

   6.4 Leasequery Request Completion Criteria

   A LEASEQUERY request is complete (i.e., no further messages
   for that request will be received) if the received
   LEASEQUERY-REPLY message had no OPTION_CLIENT_DATA option,
   or, if it did when the LEASEQUERY-DONE message is received
   (or the connection is closed).

(Obviously the LEASEQUERY-REPLY, zero or more LEASEQUERY-DATA, and zero
or one LEASEQUERY-DONE all have the same XID as the LEASEQUERY.)

We might also add one more example to the 6.5.1:

        LEASEQUERY xid 5 ----->
                         <-----  LEASEQUERY-REPLY xid 5 (w/o
OPTION_CLIENT_DATA)

- Bernie

---

From: Mark Stapp <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:02:48 -0400

Thanks, Bernie and Kim. this seems reasonable to me as something that 
helps make the exchanges and so forth clearer. unless someone objects, I 
will turn around another revision.

Thanks,
Mark